Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Lottery

Mr. Randall: If he will make a statement on his plans to reform the national lottery. [21440]

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The National Lottery Bill, which received its Second Reading in another place last month, implements many of the proposals set out in the White Paper "The People's Lottery". These proposals commanded wide public support. They will make the lottery work better and increase the number of people who will benefit from the good causes which it supports.

Mr. Randall: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the funding of the national child care strategy demonstrates that lottery money is used to supplement core spending and is therefore in breach of its founding principles?

Mr. Smith: I cannot confirm that. The hon. Gentleman will know that we hold fast to the principle of additionality, as the Conservative Government did before us. The definition of additionality was enunciated by the previous Prime Minister in September 1994. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The money raised by the Lottery will not replace public expenditure.
That is precisely not what is happening with the child care strategy. I presume from the hon. Gentleman's question that he does not want the needs of child care to be properly addressed; we do.

Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that, often, those who have been able to shout the loudest and who have been able to use the social networks have benefited most from lottery money. I understand that it is the Government's intention to allow the distributors of lottery money to seek applications in future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be useful in driving forward projects in the areas of greatest need, such as some in my constituency?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are proposing two key changes, which will be set out in the

National Lottery Bill. One change will enable lottery distributors to seek applications where they believe that there is unmet need. The second change will mean that lottery distributors will have to draw up proper strategies for the deployment of their funds. Neither of those two provisions has existed hitherto. Until now, it has been a case of the loudest applicants with the highest paid consultants coming up to the head of the queue. We want to change that so that the lottery addresses real need.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the revenue funding of the arts sector is in crisis, and that it has not been helped by a cut of £1.5 million this year by the Arts Council? Does he accept also that, in the past five years, the arts sector has lost £34 million in revenue, and that it seems that the crisis is not being taken account of by the Government in their redirection of the lottery funding? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to say how much money he believes will be forthcoming to deal with this acute problem?

Mr. Smith: I was able, with some difficulty, to hold the Arts Council's budget figure for the forthcoming year at the figure which had been set out in the Red Book previously. I am deeply aware, however, of the financial difficulties faced by many arts institutions around the country. That is because they have faced stringent financial provision for each of the past six years. One of the main provisions of the National Lottery Bill, which will enable lottery money to be spent on bricks, mortar and buildings and on supporting people and activities, will help to address that problem.

Kate Hoey: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration in the National Lottery Bill to making the 40 per cent. ruling more flexible in regard to primary schools, as it is difficult for primary schools to apply for lottery grants? Two neighbouring primary schools in an inner city will both want the community to use them, so it is impossible for the system always to work. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look into the matter?

Mr. Smith: I shall certainly look into the point that my hon. Friend makes. Obviously, we are keen to ensure the greatest possible use by the local community of the facilities in schools up and down the country. There is a real synergy to be achieved between community and school use.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the arts world can expect £50 million less this year than last year, whatever the figures in the Red Book? The right hon. Gentleman has taken it on himself to deprive the arts, heritage, sport and charities of £50 million each, so they will receive £250 million less than they were expecting when I made a similar statement to the one that the right hon. Gentleman is making this week. He has deprived the arts and culture of a unique opportunity. The Chancellor, having helped himself once to lottery money, will repeat that time and again. Will the Secretary of State agree to fight harder and more successfully next year than he has this year?

Mr. Smith: I can confirm that the arts world will receive substantially less in revenue expenditure from the


Arts Council in the coming year than it did four or five years ago, but the reason for that is the right hon. Lady's stewardship of the Department. I can also confirm that each of the four distributors that she mentioned—heritage, arts, sports and charities—will receive £1.8 billion during the current franchise of the lottery. That is exactly the amount that they expected to receive at the outset of the lottery.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend will know that the National Audit Office can check whether taxpayers' money has been spent properly and effectively. Surely we should be considering similar powers for the National Audit Office in respect of lottery money, because some people believe that lottery money—which is a form of voluntary taxation and a form of public expenditure—should be subject to some auditing, as some of it is wasted.

Mr. Smith: As far as I am aware, the lottery distributary bodies, which are appointed bodies, are themselves subject to National Audit Office scrutiny in the same way as other public bodies. They, in turn, are responsible for the judicious stewardship of the grants that they award. Over the coming years, the National Audit Office and I will be keen to examine that stewardship to see whether it has been properly exercised.

Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State says that his National Lottery Bill has widespread public support. Will he confirm that no more than 90 individuals responded to the consultation? If that is wide public support, what does he expect for unanimity? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his rather offensive remarks that organisations that have benefited from lottery grants have done so only because they made the most fuss and employed the most expensive consultants? Many organisations up and down the country will be gravely offended by that.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his assertion, that lottery money spent by the new opportunities fund to fund the national child care strategy will not replace public spending, is directly not true? The Chancellor told us that the national child care strategy will be set up with Treasury funding, which will be replaced in due course by lottery funding. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that what he has just told the House is directly incorrect?

Mr. Smith: No, I cannot agree with any of that. On his last point, the right hon. Gentleman may like to know what the noble Baroness Trumpington said in another place in November 1996. Speaking for the Conservative Government, she said:
the use of lottery funds to secure projects or programmes beyond the scope of foreseeable affordability but similar to those hitherto financed by public expenditure, or adding lottery funds to the level of affordable public expenditure in any particular area"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 567.]
was precisely in line with additionality. That is what we are doing in setting up a national child care strategy. I am astonished that the Conservatives are clearly not interested in a proper national child care strategy to help people to get work and to help kids to grow up properly and become decent citizens. We are interested in that; they are clearly not.

Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that one of the concerns of people making lottery applications in my constituency is that there should be continuity among those who deal with the applications—an essential reform which would need no legislation? Each change in personnel results in different rules applying. People feel that they are banging their heads against a brick wall at times.

Mr. Smith: I very much take that point. One of our changes will make the process friendlier and easier for the users and applicants, particularly for small-scale community and neighbourhood applications—schemes for which the deployment of lottery money can result in the greatest benefit.

United Kingdom Sports Institute

Mr. Boswell: If he will make a statement on the UK Sports Institute. [21441]

The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 December 1997 that Sheffield was the chosen site for the headquarters of the United Kingdom Sports Institute.
This is an historic moment for sport. It opens the next stage in a process that we believe will provide our best sporting talent with the facilities and back-up to help them compete at the highest level in the world.

Mr. Boswell: The Minister will appreciate the disappointment felt by the residents of Upper Heyford and the adjoining parts of my constituency, as well as further afield. He has already acknowledged the possibility of having a regional establishment there. Will he be equally sympathetic to any proposals that come forward locally for a specialist institute for a particular purpose?

Mr. Banks: I understand the disappointment felt in Upper Heyford and by the central consortium in Nottingham, as well as the hon. Gentleman's personal disappointment, because he owns a sizeable chunk of Oxfordshire.
There is nothing to stop Upper Heyford becoming one of the regional centres. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend suggested. My feelings—these are my personal feelings—are that it could be a site for the national headquarters for the Football Association and our national soccer team, because it is in a perfect position.

Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend reiterate the Government's commitment to regional centres in developing their sports strategy? Does he agree that centres with long records of excellence, such as Lilleshall, must have a part to play in the development of his policies?

Mr. Banks: Of course I accept that. My hon. Friend made a good case for Lilleshall, which will undoubtedly be considered.
Part of our strategy is to develop a proper regional structure to back up the headquarters in Sheffield. That is what the athletes, the competitors, the coaches and the


governing bodies asked us for. Although there was only one winner in the competition for the headquarters, no one lost out. My hon. Friend certainly did not.

Mr. Spring: Although I welcome the belated establishment of the Sports Institute, what were the precise criteria for its siting that led the hon. Gentleman to reject the views of the British Olympic committee and others?

Mr. Banks: The reason for the delay was so that we could get it right. We went along with the idea of an academy—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Gentlemen and an hon. Lady on the Conservative Benches moaning about that. Although the concept of an academy was good, the structure was not going to meet the needs of the competitors. What is the point of having something that no one uses? We make no apologies for ensuring that the decision was absolutely right.
Sheffield was chosen because the site is a single site with good transport access, which makes use of existing public investment in sports facilities, and, of course, Sheffield has experience of developing and operating national and international facilities. That is not a criticism of the other bids; in the end, if there is a shortlist for a headquarters site, there is one winner—and it was Sheffield.
I expect—indeed, I know—that the British Olympic Association, to which the hon. Gentleman was referring rather than the committee, will play a significant part in running the academy.

Performing Arts

Mr. Mackinlay: What investment he is proposing to increase awareness in, and to promote appreciation of, the performing arts among children and young people. [21442]

The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The lottery is helping schools to extend and widen their arts activities. The National Lottery Bill, when approved, will enable the lottery to fund a still wider range of out-of-school hours arts activities.

Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he understand that many of us hope that, during this Parliament, the Government can do much more to extend opportunities for young people to enjoy the performing arts? I feel particularly strongly about this because I saw my first ballet in Bratislava when I was 46 years of age. I was very angry that the system had denied me that wonderful opportunity for so long. The Government's task is to extend life's experiences, liberate young people and give them the opportunity of seeing the performing arts, which the class structure in this society so often denies them, leaving the performing arts as almost the exclusive privilege of people in middle-income groups and above.

Mr. Fisher: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has come to the joys and delights of ballet—even at this late stage. He is right: it is important that children should be given the chance to experience theatre, dance and music of all sorts if they are to have a proper and wide-ranging education. That comprises a comprehensive education.
Children are both the artists and the audiences of the future. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have a responsibility to ensure that children have the widest opportunities to avoid the fate that has befallen him.

Mr. Greenway: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no need for anyone to wait until they are 46 years of age to go to a ballet, because people can attend many of the matinee performances that are put on, especially for schools, by the Royal Ballet. Indeed, people can take part in many of the community projects that are put on by companies such as Opera North. Will the Minister confirm that the availability of matinee performances to schools—that means not one but two houses in London—will be a central part of the Eyre inquiry?

Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right when he pays tribute to the work of arts companies across all art forms in arts education. The schemes run by the English National Opera, Opera North and the Royal Shakespeare Company with schools are remarkable; they are introducing children to art forms at a very early age and are doing so very well. Although the Eyre inquiry is a matter for Sir Richard Eyre, I am sure that, given his record of a superb schools programme at the national theatre, such matters will be at the forefront of his mind.

Ms Blears: As my hon. Friend is aware, in Salford at this very moment we are building the Lowry centre, which will be a magnificent centre for the performing arts, with a particular emphasis on children. In view of the appalling viewing figures for opera which were released this morning—it seems that few people watch opera on television—does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to make opera and ballet relevant and accessible to a much wider range of working people, as we intend to do in the magnificent Lowry centre in Salford?

Mr. Fisher: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Lowry centre will be a real addition to the cultural life of the north west. It will be a superb piece of architecture and a focus for widening the access to the arts in the north-west.

Tourism (Employment)

Mr. Fallon: What plans he has to encourage the growth of employment in the tourism industry. [21444]

Mr. Chris Smith: The Government's new deal initiative will promote growth in tourism, which already supports some 1.7 million jobs, by helping tourism-related employers to meet their recruitment and skill needs. This has been warmly welcomed throughout the industry.

Mr. Fallon: Will not the most likely new jobs in tourism be those administering museum charges? If he really wants to encourage tourism, why does not the Secretary of State rule out charges for important national collections—or is this another broken promise?

Mr. Smith: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman is taking such a keen and unwonted interest in the British tourism industry, which has much to be grateful to him for. I am referring to his patronage of the


industry during his long search for a safe Tory seat, which took him on a tour from Darlington to more than 15 constituencies, including Woking, Kensington and Chelsea, Bromley, Horsham, Worthing and finally Sevenoaks. None the less, I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance that our great national museums and galleries offer in drawing tourists to this country and in providing good things for them to see once they are here.

Mrs. Humble: What progress has been made in involving the tourism industry in the new deal, especially in co-ordinating education and training programmes for areas such as Blackpool which rely on a seasonal tourist trade?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will probably know that, a month and a half ago, we held a major conference in London with the tourism and hospitality industries to talk about how they can take advantage of the new deal. The response was positive. For example, the managing director of Radisson Edwardian Hotels said:
The new programme provides a strong element of training which is a key need for the industry if we are to continue to offer a world class service.
That is the key to the future of the tourism industry—high-quality, well-trained and well-motivated staff who are decently remunerated. That is the way to get good service and to bring the customers back.

Mr. Fabricant: Following the news this morning that the exchange rate is DM3 to the pound and that the value of the pound has reached $1.67—thanks to the Chancellor's initiative in encouraging the Bank of England to raise interest rates sky-high—what hope is there of attracting foreign visitors to the United Kingdom when going out to a restaurant in London is about twice the price of going out to a restaurant in New York?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the enormous importance of the currency exchange rates in attracting or deterring visitors. Despite the strength of the pound, overseas visits and expenditure in the first 10 months of 1997—up to October—were up by 1 per cent. compared with the same period in the previous year.

School Playing Fields

Mr. McNulty: What plans he has to support the provision of school playing fields. [21445]

Mr. Banks: My right hon. Friend announced last week that the Government intend to make sure that those playing fields which schools and their local communities need are not sold or redeveloped in the future. We will take powers to ensure that no school playing field is disposed of without the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions proposes to require planning authorities to notify him when they are considering giving planning permission for the development of playing fields that they own and where the English Sports Council has objected. He will formally

consult local authorities on these proposals shortly. This is another manifesto commitment carried out by the Labour Government.

Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and I certainly welcomed the policy announcement last Friday.
May I draw attention to a unique site in my constituency: some 44 acres of playing fields in a suburban setting, which neither Camden—the ex-Inner London education authority borough concerned—nor any other inner-London borough requires? Many of my constituents have tried as much as they can to engage with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education and Employment, the London Playing Fields Society, the English Sports Council, the lottery people and others to ensure that a deal is put together as swiftly as possible to get that 44 acre site back into use by the community and by schools. Will my hon. Friend use his best endeavours and the offices of his Department to ensure that that happens sooner rather than later, so that my constituents may enjoy this unique facility?

Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work to safeguard the Prince Edward playing field. I know that Camden borough council is considering transferring the site to the London Playing Fields Society. I have alerted my colleagues who are responsible for the environment and education to the plight of the playing field. I expect Camden to move swiftly, and I will certainly make available whatever good offices I can to those involved in ensuring that the playing field remains for the use of the local community. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to keep up the pressure.

Mr. Gray: The Minister will be aware that 500 boys and girls play football and rugby every Saturday in Chippenham in my constituency. Doubtless he will also be aware that at present there is only one playing field facility in Chippenham. Will he take the initiative that he announced last Friday one stage further and encourage local authorities—in this case, North Wiltshire district council—to set aside land and funds for the extra provision of playing fields where those are inadequate?

Mr. Banks: Despite the enormous amount of information that I try to keep in my head, I was not aware that so many people played football in Chippenham in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I would most certainly be prepared to support anything that can be done to enhance the facilities available to young people there.

Mr. Reed: I welcome the statement about playing fields, but that is only one part of the equation, as I am sure the Minister would agree. I have visited 36 schools in Loughborough since the election and have been worried by the amount of sport played by young children. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the work of organisations such as the Youth Sports Trust, of which he knows, and the Tops programme will play a vital role in the future of sport. Does he agree that we want more money and initiatives going into that? That will ensure


that Loughborough university plays a leading role in the United Kingdom Sports Institute, which I am sure he will accept is very important.

Mr. Banks: I commend all those unbitter individuals who are raising questions surrounding the decision on the UK Sports Institute. Everyone has taken it in a sporting way. There is something in this for everyone; that specifically includes Loughborough, which is one of the great sporting centres of excellence in this country. Yes, the Youth Sports Trust and Tops—schemes which this Government very much encourage and which are also supported by the English Sports Council—are initiatives that I would want to be extended. I can assure my hon. Friend that as long as I hold a grip on this ministerial position I will continue to argue for more funds for those causes.

National Lottery

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the introduction of the sixth good cause category of national lottery funding. [21446]

Mr. Chris Smith: The National Lottery Bill will create a new good cause for health, education and the environment. This will support a rolling programme of targeted initiatives, the first three of which will be new technology training for teachers and librarians, out-of-school hours activities, including child care, and healthy living centres.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement, but will he concede that the introduction of a sixth good cause must lead to national lottery funding replacing public expenditure? Given that the experience of many people who have run national lotteries shows that revenue from the lottery will inevitably decline, will that not be a double blow to the interests of the five good causes?

Mr. Smith: No, on neither count: first, because the money that is going to child care, out-of-hours school activities, information technology training for teachers and healthy living centres is entirely additional to any existing Exchequer expenditure and, secondly, because the money that each of the existing distributors will get will be exactly in line with their expectations when the lottery was first established, as I have told the House on many occasions.

Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the National Lottery Bill were enacted unamended, he or his successor would have the power by order to reduce the proceeds allocated to the existing good causes from the existing 20 per cent. to no more than 5 per cent. and that 75 per cent. of the proceeds could therefore be allocated through the new opportunities fund to Government initiatives promoted by Ministers?
If that is the case, will the Secretary of State accept amendments that would prevent the allocation to the new opportunities fund from being increased to that level? I am sure that he understands the point that, while it may be unexceptionable for there to be reallocation between existing good causes—the allocation of funds to which is administered at arm's length from Ministers—the

uninhibited power to replace that arm's-length administration with Government-administered initiatives would be unacceptable.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect: no Government-administered good causes are to be established by the Bill. The new opportunities fund will operate at arm's length from Government exactly as the existing distribution does. We will of course examine any amendments tabled by anyone, either in the House or in another place, entirely on their merits.

Films (Product Placements)

Mr. Sheerman: When he will meet next leaders of the British film industry to discuss the growing use of product placement in films. [21447]

The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): I have not received any representations on product placement.

Mr. Sheerman: When my hon. Friend meets people in the film industry, will he raise product placement with them? It is in some senses more dangerous with generic rather than specific products. There has been an increase in both Hollywood and British films showing people smoking. As advertising becomes more regulated, there is a great fear that tobacco giants will put more money into influencing young people through their heroes on the silver screen.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Unlike in television, there is no legislation to deal with the matter in the film industry. I will pay close attention to the point.

Mr. Forth: I hope that the Minister will give the House an absolute assurance that he will not be tempted by the politically correct, modern health fascists, or any other minority group, to seek to interfere with the artistic freedom of those who make our films.

Mr. Clarke: Those in the industry would be the first to remind us that they, and indeed the audiences, have a say. They clearly know exactly where they are going, and the achievements even of the past eight months show that they have a successful future.

Tourism Grants

Mr. Hoyle: If he will reintroduce tourism grants in England under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969. [21449]

Mr. Tom Clarke: The Government have no plans to reintroduce section 4 grants.

Mr. Hoyle: Since the removal of section 4 grants by the previous Government, seaside towns and the north-west have lost heavily, while Wales and Scotland have achieved benefits by their continuation. Will my right hon. Friend consider their reintroduction?

Mr. Clarke: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in the achievement of no fewer than 25 awards in Chorley


for projects ranging from sport to tourism. Those have been helpful in achieving the objectives that he set out. We are delighted that we have maintained the expenditure for the English Tourist Board and for the British Tourist Authority. I can assure my hon. Friend that I know that the north-west will have a great deal to say; indeed, it has already welcomed the Government's proposals for regional development.

Mr. Collins: I hope that the Minister enjoyed his recent visit as a tourist to Ambleside in my constituency and that he will feel welcome to return on many future occasions. When he considers how to help tourism in my constituency and elsewhere, will he lend his weight to the campaign by many tourism businesses, and especially small guest houses, for the Chancellor to increase the value added tax threshold in the Budget?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to the Lake district, and to Ambleside in particular. I hope that he will note the fact that his constituents are very grateful that the Minister for Tourism should have recognised the beauties of their area. His question was, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that he will use his opportunities to pursue it with him.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: When my right hon. Friend considers the opportunities for the development of tourism, will he place special emphasis on supporting short-term breaks? Many seaside towns, including Blackpool, benefit from the promotion and support of such breaks, and I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right. I know that Blackpool, in common with other seaside resorts, will want to make its contribution to the tourism forum that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up a few months ago and to which he will contribute a strategic paper that will be available to the public and will cover issues such as those that my hon. Friend raised.

British-produced Films

Mr. Cohen: What steps he is taking to increase the number of British-produced films showing in (a) domestic and (b) international markets. [21450]

Mr. Jim Cunningham: What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of British-produced films shown (a) domestically and (b) internationally. [21454]

Mr. Tom Clarke: I share my hon. Friends' aspirations for British films. A key element will be the work of my film review group, which will report shortly with proposals for increasing the market for British films.

Mr. Cohen: Did my right hon. Friend see Barry Norman's review of last year's films, in which he pointed out that, although 125 British films were begun last year—compared with only 47 five years ago—more than 40 per cent. remain unreleased despite having been completed 12 months ago? Will my right hon. Friend

take action to improve the distribution network for British films in this country and abroad? Will he go the full monty in improving the selling of British films?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is right and well informed on this matter, as on others. That important issue is being considered by my film review group, which will report in a few months.

Mr. Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but can he reveal how the British film industry is doing in the British market, which is as important as the international market?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and the House will be delighted to know that we have, in the past eight months, increased from 12 to 23 per cent. Britain's share of the film market, with marvellous films such as "Bean", "Mrs. Brown", "The Full Monty" and many others. We are determined to build on those wonderful achievements.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

The Minister was asked—

New Millennium Experience Company

Ms Abbott: If he will make a statement on the accountability to Parliament of the New Millennium Experience Company. [21470]

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): As a shareholder of the company I am accountable to the House and I am delighted that, from next month, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will allow me twice as long to answer questions on the millennium experience.

Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that the National Audit Office recently identified serious problems in the procurement process for the dome before the establishment of the New Millennium Experience Company. In the light of that, why does my hon. Friend continue stubbornly to refuse to lay interim accounts and contractual information before Parliament in the Library? His argument in the past has been that to do so would put the New Millennium Experience Company in a different position from similar entities. I would argue that the company is different from similar entities, because it is spending £750 million. It is the people's dome and, largely, the people's money—why cannot the people know how that money is being spent?

Mr. Mandelson: I am not denying the House or anyone else any information, stubbornly or otherwise. All the information that such a non-departmental public body needs to make available will be made available and deposited in the Library. I gather that the next accounts are required to be laid in September and that will be done. As for other financial and contractual information, an enormous amount of such information was made available to a Select Committee of the House.

Mr. Soames: I thank the Minister for being good enough to come to the House. Will he confirm that the


blood row between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not affect the millennium project? Will the Minister also agree to publish, on a monthly basis, the cash flow forecasts for the New Millennium Experience Company?

Mr. Mandelson: No, I will not.

Mr. Baker: On accountability, may I draw to the Minister's attention page 1 of the ministerial code, which states:
Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest"?
Does he feel that his refusal to give full information on the finances and details of the dome, as criticised by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and his clear wish to avoid giving any answers on his wider responsibilities are consistent with the code?

Mr. Mandelson: I answer questions fully in accord with the requirements of the House. Far from the House being denied information about the finances of the company or any other aspects of its operation, the opposite is the case, as the Select Committee was kind enough to acknowledge. As for accountability, I have answered more than 100 written parliamentary questions since June. That compares with a mere 24 written and oral questions answered by my predecessors when the Conservative party was in power.

Mr. Maude: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his victory in the titanic struggle to persuade the Leader of the House to allow him to answer questions for 10 minutes rather than five? In the same spirit of full parliamentary accountability, will he now answer the only written question that he failed to answer on Friday by telling the House what meetings took place in Britain during 1997 between his officials, the New Millennium Experience Company or him and representatives of the Disney Corporation, why they were not publicised and what was discussed?

Mr. Mandelson: I am happy to publicise any meetings between the company and Disney, because the Select Committee urged us to take advice from and consult the acknowledged world leaders in entertainment. At the Select Committee's behest, I travelled to Florida for discussions with Disney, not to import ideas about attractions but because I wanted to discuss managing the flow of visitors, catering, internal transport and other logistical aspects; and a very useful series of meetings they have been, too.

Millennium Experience

Miss Kirkbride: How much has been spent on the millennium experience at Greenwich out of public funds. [21471]

Mr. Mandelson: No taxpayers' money is being spent on the project other than that already committed by English Partnerships to prepare the site for development. The New Millennium Experience Company is receiving

a lottery grant of £399 million net from the Millennium Commission, of which the company had spent £58.5 million by the end of 1997.

Miss Kirkbride: I understand that the Minister does not want to give us much information about the financial aspect of the millennium dome and the millennium experience, but he has said that he wishes it to be the best of British. Will he elucidate why he needs to find out about the best of British in Disneyland in Florida and why his boss the Prime Minister needs to go to Japan to find experiences that will clearly not be the best of British?

Mr. Mandelson: The hon. Lady cannot have listened to my reply about my visit to Disney. My responsibilities as Minister in connection with this matter have received commendation, most recently from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who in an interview last week said:
I think that he's doing it as well as it can be done. It is a difficult and controversial job to do and there's no easy precedent.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Rights of Audience

Mr. MacShane: If he will take steps to allow all qualified lawyers rights of audience in all courts. [21475]

Mr. Mackinlay: What reforms he is proposing in the rights of audience before the courts. [21476]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Government are not satisfied that all of the current restrictions on who may exercise rights of audience in the courts are in the public interest, nor are we satisfied with the current procedures for granting or extending those rights. We will announce our detailed reform proposals on the subject in due course.

Mr. MacShane: Did I hear my hon. Friend aright? Is he saying that the last great closed shop monopoly of the professions, that of the barristers, is about to be reformed, and that my constituents who complain that their solicitors have not been allowed to take their cases into all the court areas into which they wish to have them taken will now be allowed to do so? Is this modernising Government about to reform the last great Tory restrictive practice?

Mr. Hoon: I must make it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no statutory bar on solicitors appearing in the higher courts; it is the Law Society's own rules that prevent them from exercising rights of audience in those courts unless they have the Law Society's higher courts qualification. It is obviously open to the Law Society to amend its rules if it wishes, but the Government are dissatisfied with the complex, bureaucratic and slow procedures that currently affect rights of audience, and we are determined to reform them.

Mr. Mackinlay: What does my hon. Friend intend to do about the Bar Council, which has been dragging its feet on introducing the necessary mechanisms to allow barristers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to appear in the courts? Is that not yet a further example of the restrictive practice referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), which is exercised by people who are trying to increase public expenditure unnecessarily? The CPS has trained and professionally qualified barristers who are not allowed to appear in the courts because their brethren want the rich pickings from those courts.

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has highlighted one of the underlying reasons why we believe it is necessary to reform the present arrangements. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's suggestion, but the matter is not entirely in our hands. Employed solicitors were granted limited rights of audience in the higher courts in February last year. I, for one, find it surprising that the Bar has not yet made a formal application to the Lord Chancellor for employed barristers to be given the same rights as employed solicitors. We would welcome such an application.

Mr. Garnier: Has the Minister given any thought to the effect that the Government's proposals to change the legal aid system and the tax system with reference to the legal profession will have on the number of qualified lawyers remaining in practice and available to appear in the courts? Will not the changes that the Government are ramming through mean that there will be fewer lawyers in practice to assist the least well off and the needy? Does he not realise that he is not reforming Clement Attlee's welfare system but dismantling it?

Mr. Hoon: I am interested to note the hon. and learned Gentleman's use of the expression "ramming through". The proposals were first announced in October last year. We said that we would consult on them before issuing a consultation document, which is likely to be published at the end of February. Thereafter, we will consult on the proposals in it and listen carefully to the representations that we receive. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is simply not used to the idea of a Government who listen to the reactions to the consultation documents they publish.

Disability Issues

Mr. Barnes: If he will make a statement on his Department's guidance to judges in relation to disability issues. [21478]

Mr. Hoon: The Judicial Studies Board has an advisory committee whose responsibilities were recently extended to cover all aspects of equal treatment training, including training on disability issues. The committee will be considering guidance for members of the judiciary on disability questions.

Mr. Barnes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern and that expressed by organisations such as the Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People about the case of Mary Nevin, who asked to use an alphabet board in court because she suffers from multiple sclerosis but was

refused permission by a judge? Will that decision be changed in the future so that disabled people are not discriminated against in court? Will the rules on accessibility of evidence be altered to overcome that problem?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been in correspondence with the Lord Chancellor's Department about that case. It is obviously not appropriate for me to comment on its details, but I emphasise that it does not set a precedent—each case must be considered on its merits.
I am encouraging members of the judiciary to be acutely sensitive to the needs of disabled people. The equal opportunities training of the judiciary will include that on disability to assist them to act sympathetically in a manner that will not impair their impartial role in the operation of the court.

Mr. Clappison: What the Minister says about making the judiciary acutely sensitive to the needs of the disabled will be welcomed throughout the House. Does he agree, however, that that requirement should be carefully circumscribed? What does he make of the comments made by one of his Department's officials who, speaking at a conference in Cambridge at the weekend, raised the possibility of greater investigation of the political background of judges and the evolution of the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords into
something like the Supreme Court"?

Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of those comments, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his general support for the matters raised in the question. As I said earlier, it is important that, whatever is the response of particular judges to the disabled, that should not impair their impartial role in the operation of the court. In response to his further observations, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that information is already gathered about the political sympathies of an important element of the judiciary—magistrates.

Courts (People with Learning Difficulties)

Mr. Wicks: If he will make a statement about the court system's treatment of those with serious learning difficulties. [21479]

Mr. Hoon: The Department is committed to providing a high level of service to all court users. In particular, it is playing an active and vigorous role in the vulnerable or intimidated witness working group, which was set up by the Home Secretary and is looking at improving the whole criminal justice process, including court procedures, for people with learning difficulties.

Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that people with severe learning difficulties are at particular risk, not least from physical and sexual abuse? It is therefore important that they receive justice in the courts. What are the implications of that for court facilities and for the training of the judiciary?

Mr. Hoon: I am aware of that concern. Sympathetically providing for and dealing with those who


suffer from disability is covered in the training with which the Judicial Studies Board is to be involved. In addition, my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently issued a direction that magistrates courts committees should meet specified standards of performance relating to disabled court users. The good practice guide, copies of which have been placed in the House of Commons Library, makes it clear that that includes people with learning disabilities.

Conditional Fees

Mr. Mitchell: What assessment he has made of the likely use and effectiveness of conditional fees in England and Wales. [21480]

Mr. Hoon: By the end of 1997, at least 34,000 conditional fee agreements had been made, half of them in the past 12 months. That shows that, throughout the country, conditional fee agreements are not only an established way of funding litigation, but providing a means of access to justice for people who, in the past, were denied it.

Mr. Mitchell: As that is a comparatively small use of conditional fees since their introduction from Scotland and as there is no indication from those figures, or from any research that anyone has seen, that such arrangements can protect the less well-off in compensation cases as well as legal aid can protect them, why does not the Lord Chancellor rethink his proposal to replace legal aid in compensation cases with conditional fees and run the two systems side by side for a period, so that we can study the effects and benefits of both systems instead of taking a leap in the dark?

Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend and I have debated this subject on a number of occasions, so I shall spare him the repetition of detail that I have set out previously. As I said earlier, the Government are determined to consult, in detail and in depth, about the proposals. I emphasise that, from that wide consultation, we shall not exclude any category of case that would be unlikely to attract a conditional fee agreement.

Mr. Hawkins: Does the Minister accept that, although conditional fees have been introduced only recently, there are considerable concerns that we could be going down the same road as courts in the USA and that a class of ambulance-chasing lawyers might start to grow here? In his further consultation, will he take seriously into account those concerns, which have been expressed by many people both inside and outside the legal profession?

Mr. Hoon: Of course I shall take them seriously into account, but I hasten to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported that first allowed conditional fees to be introduced. Although my memory does not serve me fully, I assume that he expressed similar concerns at the time of their introduction. Conditional fees have been outstandingly successful: some 34,000 fees had been taken forward under conditional fee arrangements by the end of last year, but that statistic disguises the fact that the rate of use of conditional fees is increasing month by month.

Mr. Burnett: In his speech to the Law Society in Cardiff on 18 October last year, the Lord Chancellor said that he intended
to co-ordinate these services"—
those of citizens advice bureaux—
under a coherent scheme which will provide a service to the whole public which is both easy to access and to understand.
Citizens advice bureaux fill a huge and increasing void in the provision of legal advice to individuals, and a number of bureaux have taken a great deal of time and trouble to prepare and submit applications for legal aid franchises. Why have the Government withdrawn funding for the western area citizens advice bureaux franchise?

Mr. Hoon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the funding of citizens advice bureaux is primarily a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am, however, keen to see their involvement in providing legal and other advice in the not-for-profit sector out of available funds. There has never been any promise of funding to any particular citizens advice bureau other than through the franchising process; that exercise is currently under way. There is no suggestion that any specific funds have been withdrawn from any organisation.

Office for the Supervision of Solicitors

Mr. Tipping: What representations he has received about the first annual report of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [21481]

Mr. Hoon: To date, I have not received any such representations.

Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister accept that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors has received representations? The number of complaints has risen 7 per cent. over the previous year. As well as an increase in complaints there is a persistent view among complainants that their complaints are not treated either seriously or quickly enough. When my hon. Friend has the opportunity, will he raise those issues with the organisation and look for better performance measures?

Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter once again. It is clearly important that the public should have confidence in the way in which complaints against solicitors are addressed. I am determined that the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors, established by the Law Society, should have the opportunity to demonstrate that it is dealing effectively with complaints. It seems that one test of the office's success will be the reaction of hon. Members and their constituents. I know that the OSS would welcome visits from hon. Members so that it can listen to their concerns in person and explain what it is doing to meet them. I encourage my hon. Friend to take up the offer of a visit to the OSS.

Mr. Fabricant: Given that the office has a role in overseeing the activities of solicitors, and further to the Minister's earlier answer that it is the Law Society, among other organisations, that is preventing the right of access of solicitors to higher courts, will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to examine the system that exists in New Zealand whereby solicitors, along with barristers, have a right of audience in higher courts?

Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I inadvertently misled the hon. Gentleman: solicitors have the right of audience in higher courts and have had that opportunity for some time. They have to be approved by the Law Society before they are able to appear in the higher courts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of such prior approval, as it demonstrates competence among quite a limited number of solicitors who presently satisfy the Law Society's rules in that respect.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 January].

[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 1

MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"

Amendment proposed [15 January]: No. 26, in page 1, line 13, at the end, to insert the words 'other than in Article 2, paragraph 7'.—[Mr. Cash].

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Bill Rammell: When the debate was interrupted on Thursday, I was talking about the air of unreality that often infects the debates and how out of touch they are with the views of ordinary people on the real issues concerning Europe.
It has struck me that, in this and previous debates in Committee, the tide of anti-Europeanism that we hear from the Conservative Benches has carried on as though the events of 1 May 1997 had not taken place. I do not say that simply to make a party political point. Only twice since the second world war have major political parties in this country campaigned on a platform hostile to the European Union—Labour in 1983 and the Conservative party in 1997—and on both occasions that resulted in an overwhelming defeat for the party advocating that view. The time is long overdue for Conservative Members to reflect on that.
I am sure that we shall hear in this and forthcoming debates in Committee—as we heard in previous debates—interesting arguments about sovereignty. Those, broadly, amounted to an argument that it is okay to have qualified majority voting and therefore, by implication, greater integration on commercial matters and a single market, but on nothing else. I do not think that that distinction is based on logic and sound principle. Once one has accepted that there is a case for qualified majority voting on some issues, it is simply a matter of judgment where to draw the line. I believe that the Government have drawn the line correctly within the treaty of Amsterdam.
One area where we obviously need to make progress is discrimination and the need to pursue equal opportunities. Any reasonable person would conclude that the need for anti-discrimination legislation was one area where concerted action was needed. I say that not only from the perspective of social concern but in relation to economic and industrial concerns, because in this day and age, when the keys to economic and industrial success are employee skills and the maximisation of employees' potential, it is crucial that we involve every potential employee in that process. To exclude some people simply on the grounds of their sex, their race, their disability or their sexuality is not just a social evil but a cause for economic and industrial concern.
It is largely proven that we need to tackle those issues, not just across Europe, as has been argued, but specifically in Britain. In Britain today, young black people are twice as likely to be unemployed as young white people, and more than one in three black 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work. Racial attacks in Britain have doubled since 1988. Low pay in Britain disproportionately affects women: 30,000 women earn less than £1.50 an hour.
There is a major need in Britain, but that need is at least as strong throughout Europe. The fact that, in France, the National Front, which advocates profoundly racist policies, achieves as much as 15 per cent. of the vote in the French national elections, emphasises the need for concerted action on these matters.
Clause 1 should be judged in that context. Article 6a of the treaty of Amsterdam provides the legal base for Community measures—which must then be adopted unanimously—to combat discrimination. I do not believe that the clause will lead to major change in Britain; in many senses, we are already in the vanguard with the legislation that we have passed and proposed. However, in this area we have an opportunity to use our experience and expertise to bring about positive changes in Europe, without needing to dismantle our existing laws.
In a sense, that is what leading in Europe should be about. Where we have the experience and the background, we should bring those to bear. Of course, in doing so, we should judge each proposal on its merits. It is worth emphasising that article 6a is an enabling provision for future action, not a free-standing and unrestricted principle.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what he considers "appropriate action" means? We have found that, in the past, the courts have interpreted clauses in a strange way.

Mr. Rammell: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I want to address the issues before I do so. It has been argued—undoubtedly it will be argued by the hon. Gentleman—that the proposals go too far. Those concerns are not well founded.
First, any proposal must be decided by unanimity. Clearly, if a proposal is excessive, it can be vetoed. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) rightly says, the article stipulates that any action must be appropriate to the objective—so no sledgehammers will be used to crack nuts. If a nation state deems a proposal disproportionate to the objective, it can veto it or take legal action to show—the same principle applies already in this country and throughout Europe—that the measure is indeed disproportionate.
It is worth noting, too, that the new subsidiarity protocol makes it clear that action at the European Union level is justified only when it cannot be achieved by a member state acting alone.
There are also exemptions allowing national characteristics to be taken into account, even if a proposal has been agreed unanimously. We have experience of that already: the 1976 equal treatment directive left member states the freedom not to require equal treatment for the sexes in some circumstances. That allowed the United


Kingdom to maintain the exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, so that Church ministers and employees could remain exempt. That will be the way forward with this article.
Above all, I maintain that active discrimination is a curse on the lives of millions of our fellow citizens, and if the article can serve to focus attention on the need for action, it is wholly to be welcomed. I hope that the Committee will welcome it today.

Mr. Michael Howard: No one should be in any doubt about the attitude of the Conservative party to discrimination. We are resolutely opposed to it. We took action in government, legislative and otherwise, to fight it. We stand ready in opposition to support any sensible and effective measures that the Government may take to combat it.
Among the legislative measures that we took were the Public Order Act 1986, which contains a number of provisions to deal with incitement to racial hatred, under which the maximum penalty for such incitement is two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine; and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which made the publication of racially inflammatory material an arrestable offence, and created the new offence of intentional harassment.
We are proud of our record on race relations; they are not perfect in this country, but they are the envy of much of the rest of the world.
We believe that legislative provisions to deal with discrimination on racial and other grounds should be carefully tailored to reflect the differing nature that those problems assume in different countries. Great care has been taken with our domestic legislation to make sure that it reflects our circumstances. That is the right approach. The difficulty—as pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash), for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)—which arises out of the catch-all provisions of article 13 is that it does not meet those requirements. That difficulty is aggravated by the potential for the European Court of Justice to go beyond specific legislation and act on the basis of treaty language such as that with which we are concerned here.
Can the Minister confirm that the ECJ could indeed intervene in that way? The Minister will be aware that widespread concern has been expressed about the far-reaching implications of the article. Let me give him some examples of discrimination that could be caught—on the face of it, would be caught—by the provision.
Should the magistracy be open to adults under the age of 27? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatments to women in their late 40s? Should Sikh pupils in schools be forbidden to carry metal knives around their necks? Should the institution of marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples? Should Church schools be allowed to require the head teacher to be a practising Christian? Should they be able to insist that teachers of sex education personally adhere to the Church teaching of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it? What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples?
Those examples all relate to the public sector, but there are others that relate to the private sector. All religious groups in the United Kingdom can refuse to admit

individuals to membership on the basis of their religious beliefs. Mosques are allowed to employ only practising Muslims. The Roman Catholic Church is allowed to ordain only men in the priesthood. Churches can dismiss a minister who commits adultery. What is the Government's view of the application of the article to those examples? I am indebted to Christian Action, Research and Education for providing them.
I hope that the Minister will take those questions seriously. They have caused widespread apprehension and concern. I doubt whether the Minister can allay that apprehension and concern. If he cannot, why did the Government sign up to the article?

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): rose—

Mr. Howard: I have almost finished. The Minister will have his opportunity to reply when he winds up the debate.
Those are genuine concerns. We have deep reservations about these matters, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Mr. Henderson: We have had a good debate, which was broken by the 10 pm finish on Thursday. A range of views from different parts of the House has been expressed well. It may be simplest for me to state the Government's position, and if any hon. Member on either side wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to deal with detail. There are many unknowns, as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) knows.
I shall state the principle first. Article 6a is a new measure which provides a legal base for Community measures to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. It does not mean that the European Union will, over time, develop a panoply of measures on every one of those issues to cover every circumstance.
Many safeguards are built in. The first is that this is an enabling measure. In itself, it does not change any Act of Parliament or any measure covered by an Act of Parliament in any EU state. As was acknowledged by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) in his introduction to the debate, measures that are taken in the future based on the provisions of this measure must be adopted by unanimity. That means that there will have to be a huge common ground of support on such difficult and delicate social issues before the Union will be able to adopt measures based on this authority. That is a strong safeguard, which ensures that only where there is common support will the Union enact measures that will have a real impact on the lives of citizens throughout the EU.
Examples were cited by hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on Thursday evening, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) in his contributions on Thursday and today. If we in the UK believe that racial discrimination should be outlawed, and that there should be freedom of movement for British citizens throughout the European Union, is it not reasonable to believe that the EU should be able to take action to guarantee non-discrimination for our citizens when they freely move to Europe? Is that not the core of


the issue? That is the context in which I believe the authority of the measure will be used to provide a basis for action in the future.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give a specific assurance that the new Labour Government will in no circumstances agree to any future treaty that would transfer the power from unanimity to majority vote? Does he appreciate that I ask the question because I have sat here for many years and seen measures that were previously subject to unanimity being made subject to majority vote?

Mr. Henderson: The Government signed the treaty in relation to article 6 clause because the important safeguard of unanimity is built into it. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot commit future Governments to any particular course of action—no one can. However, we believed that that was a strong part of the article that had to be achieved in order to make it acceptable. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no intention of moving on that issue during the lifetime of this Parliament.

Mr. Howard: If the key question is the need for members of racial minorities who are appropriately protected in this country to travel freely throughout the European Union without suffering discrimination, the answer is for other countries to introduce their own national domestic legislation in that regard. According to the hon. Gentleman's interpretation, if those countries are not prepared to do that, the unanimity requirement—which is correctly part of the provision—prevents their being obliged by any action under the treaty to take such steps.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. Does he not appreciate that the answer that he has just given to my hon. Friend destroys completely the rationale that he has provided for the article being in the treaty?

Mr. Henderson: I do not accept that view—although it is a very nice argument—because it does not deal with the real issues. I shall discuss the subsidiarity provisions in a moment.
If we believe that key issues within the European Union are commenting on social conditions—or even moral values in some cases—and outlawing actions such as racial discrimination, and if all member states agree that those issues must be addressed, it may be appropriate to introduce a common standard. However, that does not prevent any member state from deciding, because of its particular circumstances, to do something complementary or additional to the basic provisions that are built into European law.
The subsidiarity article is important because it protects a nation state's distinctiveness. When a nation state believes that it has a particular problem with social conditions that does not affect other European states, it does not have to try to impose an all-embracing, Europewide measure in that regard. Therefore, I do not accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point.
The article states specifically that there must be a subsidiarity test on those issues. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not allow my intervention earlier, so I shall give now the assurance that I intended to give

then. The Government do not intend to change any provisions that are currently incorporated in British law regarding the issues to which he referred. For example, Muslim churches will be allowed to employ Muslim staff if that is felt to be appropriate in the circumstances and it is currently upheld in British law. We do not intend to change such provisions.
I have received many letters from the religious community about those matters. The Government will continue to uphold those articles that are currently covered by the words "where appropriate" and the question of what is suitable according to British anti-discrimination law. Any measure that we enter into at a European level will continue to uphold that principle.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry for interrupting the Minister again. I am not trying to cause trouble; he is a very courteous person. Does he appreciate that his arguments regarding the benefits and the principles of subsidiarity are undermined in paragraph (2) on page 85 of the treaty? It says that subsidiarity is reduced by the fact that it will be overcome so that
the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies".
I do not doubt the Minister's sincerity and I appreciate that there are many pages of documents, but his assurances regarding subsidiarity are broadly undermined by that statement.

Mr. Henderson: Anything that had to be agreed in this context would be agreed unanimously. Paragraph (4) says:
the reasons for concluding that a Community objective can be better achieved by the Community must be substantiated by qualitative or, wherever possible, quantitative indicators.
The assurances that the hon. Gentleman is looking for have already been negotiated by the Government and are to be found in the draft treaty. I do not think that there is a cause for concern. However, the issue is important.
I want to be able to give assurances to our Churches that they can continue to operate under the provisions of British law, which exist to protect the community against racism. They are there also to ensure that there is no religious discrimination. Those protections can be assured and I want to give guarantees that will keep not only the hon. Gentleman pleased—I know that that would be extremely difficult—but my constituents and many others. Many of my constituents have questioned me on these matters, and I hope that I have been able to reassure them.

Mr. William Cash: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has just said, the Minister cannot have it both ways. As I said when I moved the amendment, if we are to have unanimity, it is clear that either the Government are behind the provisions in the treaty, or they do not intend to agree to proposals that will come from the other member states.
The hon. Gentleman must know whether, in principle, he is prepared to accept that position. Despite the attempts of the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), to intervene, only to be clapped off by the Minister because he wanted to listen to what I had to say, will the Minister accept that he cannot have it both ways? If there is no intention, as he


seems to be saying, to give way to what other member states would intend, will he accept that he would find it extremely difficult to justify their intrusion into the treaty?

Mr. Henderson: When I listened to the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, I thought that I was hearing a great deal of self-incrimination. I thought that, rather than listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) wished to whisper in my ear, I should hear the rest of the intervention.
The hon. Gentleman should understand that not everyone starts from his premise. We do not all start from the premise that the other 14 European states are about to impose something on the United Kingdom, which might be acceptable for them but will be hopelessly inappropriate for the society in which we live in Britain. That is not our starting point.
Our starting point is that we are a contributor to discussion or dialogue within the European Union. There will be ideas coming forward from all member states, including the United Kingdom. We think that we have much to offer our partners in the Community in this context. As the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe acknowledged, Britain is ahead of the game. Our laws are probably better than those in other EU states, as is the impact of our law. I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point that our position in law does not mean that there is anything like perfection in the United Kingdom, but progress has been made. Where other member states are able to examine British law and say that, in the effort to build a common base against the background of a common view—that does not exclude member states from doing something complementary to that base—the United Kingdom is pointing in the right direction, it would be desirable to follow that course.
The unanimity provision is designed to ensure that any legislation that bears on this delicate, difficult and sensitive area has a broad base of support. That is why I believe that the article is an important part of the treaty. I do not accept—

Mr. Howard: The Minister's argument is based on the assumption that nothing can happen under the article unless specific legislative provisions are agreed. However, he will know that, as I put to him earlier, many eminent lawyers believe that the European Court of Justice could, in effect, give direct application to the article, and that a complaint could be brought before the ECJ on the basis of the article and the general principles laid down in it. The European Court of Justice has intervened in not dissimilar circumstances in the past. Can the Minister give a specific and categorical assurance that the court will not be able to intervene on the basis of article 2 unless and until there are specific legislative provisions under it?

Mr. Henderson: The role of the European Court of Justice does not change under the provision. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, the court will continue to have a role in first-pillar matters, such as social and employment policy. If it felt that a provision was against the general principles of the treaty, of course it could have a say. However, if such a difficulty arose in respect of a third-pillar issue, the court could not intervene

unless the nation concerned made provision for it to do so. I have had this discussion with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on many occasions, so I shall now move on.

4 pm

Mr. Howard: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Henderson: No, I must move on. I have dealt with the issue thoroughly in previous discussions. I said again during the debate on clause 1 that the court can intervene in first-pillar matters, but not in third-pillar matters unless the Government makes provision for it to do so, and the Government have no intention of changing matters in that regard.
The article is an important part of the treaty, and I ask the Committee to reject the amendment.

Mr. Howard: I have paid tribute to the Minister during our discussions because in previous debates he made genuine attempts to answer all the points that were raised. However, this afternoon his answer has been woefully inadequate. To rest on distinctions between the third pillar and the first pillar might have been appropriate before the treaty of Amsterdam, but one of the consequences of the treaty is, to a very large extent, to dissolve those differences.
The whole point of the previous Government's position on the issue was that we wanted co-operation on racial and other discrimination issues, and we were perfectly happy to reach agreement on those issues under the third pillar. However, the introduction of the article into the treaty gives the European Court of Justice jurisdiction.
The Minister will know perfectly well that, in its general attitude to which he referred a few moments ago, the European Court of Justice is fully entitled to take into account, in deciding whether it is appropriate for it to intervene, provisions such as those that are now contained in the treaty on European Union as a consequence of the article.
Therefore, there is no point in the Minister pretending that the insertion of the article in the treaty makes no difference. It is wrong for him to suggest that it does not change the position of the European Court of Justice. It is a treaty article which could be taken into account by the European Court of Justice in reaching decisions on complaints brought before it. That is why I repeat my question to the Minister, to which I have so far received no answer that is remotely adequate. Is he satisfied that the European Court of Justice cannot take action on these matters without any specific legislative action being agreed by the member states? That is the question. Will the Minister now answer it?

Mr. Doug Henderson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman giving way?

Mr. Howard: That depends on the Minister's answer.

Mr. Henderson: I rise in the belief that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving way to me. The implication of his remarks may be that the Opposition believe that there is no role for the European Court of Justice. That is not our view. The Government accept the need for the Court of Justice to intervene in the first pillar, as it did when the previous Government were in power.
It would be open to the Court of Justice to say that a view had not been taken on the treaty commitment to anti-discrimination in the preparation of a particular directive and that it should therefore be set aside until consideration was given. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that that is different from the European Community bringing forward anti-discrimination legislation based on the authority of the clause, which could be done only by unanimity?

Mr. Howard: On the basis that I was previously giving way to the Minister—

The Chairman: Order. It may be helpful if I clarify that we are in Committee, when it is open to any hon. Member to speak more than once.

Mr. Howard: I am grateful, Sir Alan.
Of course there is a difference between the two situations that the Minister has identified. He seems to have answered my question in the affirmative. The Court of Justice could intervene, in reliance on this article in the treaty, without any specific legislative action being agreed.
The key lies in the Minister's opening observation when he rose to reply to the debate a few minutes ago. In a perhaps characteristic moment of frankness, he said that there were many unknowns on the issue. That is undoubtedly true, and it is the danger. Sensitivities are of the utmost importance on this matter. That is why our legislation has been so carefully crafted to reflect our national circumstances. Problems undoubtedly exist in the rest of the European Union. The best way for them to be dealt with is for other member states to take action that reflects their national circumstances. If we were dependent on specific legislative action being taken under the article, we would be in the position that has been described, because of the unanimity requirement. It would defeat the rest of the Minister's argument for having the article in the treaty, but at least that would be our position.
The dangers arise from the possibility of the Court of Justice being able to intervene without specific legislative action, because, as the Minister has said, there are many unknowns. That is why the Government should not have agreed to the article. They should have insisted that agreements on such issues, which I am not against in principle, should have been made under the third pillar. The treaty should not contain an article giving the court jurisdiction on that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I hope that the Minister will think carefully about the desirability of going back to Brussels to see whether something can be done about this little article. The assurances that he has given do not add up to much.
First, the hon. Gentleman told us not to worry about it because there was the protection of unanimity. That would be fine if it were a real protection, but the Minister should bear in mind the fact that, in all the years that I and others here have been in the House, we have seen matters that were subject to unanimity fading to majority vote because Governments, in admittedly difficulty negotiating circumstances, have agreed to the change. Hon. Members should be aware that there is a widespread desire in the European Union to make everything subject to majority vote—that is not much of a protection.
The Minister also said that we have the protection of subsidiarity. I hope that hon. Members will think about that. When subsidiarity was first put into a treaty, we thought that it was an amazing step forward. I have been trying in various ways to find out how it was a step forward. I have not found any sign that the European Union has intervened less in member states' interests. In fact, it seems to have got worse.
I genuinely hope that colleagues will look at page 85 of the treaty and see for themselves. Whereas subsidiarity used to be regarded as significant, although I do not think that it was, we find on page 85 that all the principal supports of subsidiarity are fading away. To that extent, there seems to be no protection at all.
The third assurance was not to worry because nothing will happen concerning the European Court of Justice. The Minister has kindly and fairly accepted that, of course, something will happen concerning the court. I hope that, before we agree to such matters, hon. Members will think back to the famous case of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. It was approved by the House of Commons, we were told by the Commission that it was okay and we were told by friends in the Council of Ministers that it was okay. Everyone was happy—then, all of a sudden, some years later, the Act was wholly overturned by the Court of Justice. Therefore, approving such powers is very dangerous.
I hope that hon. Members will think about the wording, which refers to "appropriate action". Some people will ask, "Why should we worry if they are all nice people and men of good will?" Unfortunately, we have found through time that "appropriate action" and such phrases can be interpreted to mean almost anything. It has been tragic watching previous Governments—both Conservative and Labour—discover to their horror that things to which they agreed and thought were okay turned out not to be okay at all.
I hope that hon. Members will bear very much in mind the fact that we have heard assurance after assurance in the past. I ask those who are considering the assurances today to think of those given over Maastricht and subsidiarity.
I am a member of a horrible little Committee called the Treasury Committee, along with my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is in his place. We work very hard. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have heard, as I did, the assurances given during debates on the Maastricht treaty about our opt-out of the single currency. I am sure that he has read carefully as I did the Bank of England's comments on the matter. They make it clear that the assurances are basically a load of codswallop. We will be subject to the rules and legislation of the EU and the ecu whether we agree to join the single currency or not.
I do not question the Minister's sincerity. He is one of the nicest and kindliest Ministers who has dealt with this subject. I have had to deal with many bad-tempered and difficult Ministers over many years since the treaty of Rome was signed. I just hope that, because he is nice, he is not taken in more than others were. On this occasion, I think that he has been wholly taken in. Clause 1 is dangerous. It would have been far better to deal with the matter through national legislation. As I


have said over the past 23 years, to the boredom of the House, we are being misled. We are making a great mistake, and I do not think that we should do so.

Mr. Cash: The Minister said that he thought that it would not be inappropriate to have common standards on such matters across Europe. By the same token, he said in reply to me that there was unanimity in the provisions, and it therefore could not be assumed that we would agree to arrangements that would produce the common standards to which I have just referred. The Minister knows perfectly well that the provision is a slippery slope, and there is absolutely no justification for having agreed to it.
I said in my opening remarks that I thought that perhaps the Minister had not noticed what the provision involved. He has not given me any reassurance on that point. He has cobbled together some arguments during the debate, but I have an idea that he was not involved directly in the matter. I suspect that it was thought that article 6a was just another article with something to do with discrimination; that nobody is against discrimination so it would be extremely difficult for us to take exception to it; and that it was therefore allowed to go through on the nod. I suspect that, as the argument has developed in Committee, the Minister has concluded that some rather serious problems are inherent in the provision. It should not have been allowed to go through on the nod.
I am glad to note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has taken a robust view of the provisions. He has risen three times in response to the Minister and the more he has done so, the more my right hon. and learned Friend has objected to the provisions. The Government's response, as he says, has been woefully inadequate. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the provisions involve the extension of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and he has made it clear that the provisions should not have been agreed to.
The Minister has given us no satisfaction. The provisions may have been dealt with by unanimity, but they are bringing us into the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and they are creating a new legal framework within which the provisions will be construed.
4.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) indicated that horse trading takes place over and over again in terms of provisions put in place by unanimity. Given the number of headings under which article 6a could be applied, there is no justification for believing that horse trading will not happen again.
It is not just a question of religion, disability or racism; or a question of one or another of those. Hundreds of directives, regulations and communications can be brought in under the provisions; there will not be one specific directive dealing with combating religious discrimination. All those regulations are potentially subject to the Court of Justice if they are brought in

and the Government decide to agree to a particular measure. [Interruption.] If the parliamentary private secretary, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), cannot shut up for five minutes and allow the Minister to listen to the argument, it is a poor show for the House. The hon. Gentleman is not a Minister, and he should sit back in his seat and learn to take instructions rather than try to lecture the Minister.
The provisions are to be brought forward by the European Commission after consultation with the European Parliament. The consultation with the European Parliament is an objectionable provision, but the key problem is that the European Commission will take the initiative. If that happens in relation to any of the provisions, it is as certain as certain can be that the Commission will go for the kind of things I mentioned in my opening remarks—uniformity, homogeneity and provisions intended to create the kind of Europe the Commission wants, which will be intrusive and evasive. Subsidiarity will have no impact on that.
Back in the Maastricht days, I argued that subsidiarity was a con trick. The whole operation is intended to transfer upwards, but to give the impression that there will be a devolution of provisions downwards. It is nothing of the kind. All the most important matters are to be dealt with by the upper levels. That is precisely why, within the legal framework, these provisions confer on the Court of Justice jurisdiction which takes the matters to a higher level automatically. There is nothing to prevent that. It is a total disgrace and a condemnation of the Government that they are not prepared to acknowledge that they have sold the pass on these provisions.
I suspect that there are hon. Members—not many, I regret to say—who genuinely believe that the Amsterdam treaty is not worth a row of beans. It was sold on the basis that there are people who want European homogeneity, uniformity, integration or whatever one might call it—political union—to be as extensive as possible. Even given the diminutive number of Labour Members present, I cannot believe that their constituents have not even the slightest interest in provisions of this sort, which will remove hon. Members' rights to take such decisions on their behalf.
We are dealing with questions of religion, racism, disability and age—a whole raft of provisions. There is no conceivable reason why the Minister and the Government should have allowed those decisions to be taken away from the people who voted them in at the ballot box on 1 May. It does not matter which party is in power. The reality is that the provisions will remain the same. Every Labour Member will face the same problem, even though so few of them are present.
When the provisions are translated into law and the horse trading takes place, subsidiarity collapses and we are confronted with the result—be it in two or three years—the Minister will produce a directive. If I am a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation when another raft of provisions goes through on any of those headings, I will call for a debate on the Floor of the House because they will they have gone through irrespective of the fact that the Minister said that they are a matter of unanimity. I can see some Labour members of that Select Committee present and I hope that they will remember what I am saying. I


will expect the Select Committee to demand a debate on the Floor of the House. I bet anything that the Leader of the House will say no to such a debate and propose that the matter be considered in a Standing Committee, which the Government can control.

Mr. Greg Pope: What has this got to do with the amendment?

Mr. Cash: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Is it right for the Whip to make ridiculous comments from a sedentary position?

The Chairman: The hon. Member must not tempt me. I am responsible for order in the Committee and I will take the decisions about that.

Mr. Cash: I am not tempting you, Sir Alan, but merely pointing out to you, as an ex-member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, that you should note that the points I am making are matters of great concern to the House. As you well know, it is all about scrutiny. The Amsterdam treaty contains provisions that relate to national Parliaments, and their role and scrutiny are part of this debate.
I am deeply disturbed by the Minister's reaction to clause 1. He engaged in nothing less than weasel words. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, there has been no attempt to answer the serious questions that lie at the heart of the matter.
The Minister said that at present there was no intention to deal with the sort of problems that might come up because they did not require any treatment. The Human Rights Bill is before the House of Lords. I see the Minister looking down and I suspect that he knows what I am about to say. That Bill will effectively transfer a raft of jurisdictions to the European Court, under the Amsterdam treaty.
I am worried about the Minister's use of the words "at present". I see that he is shaking his head. That shows that he has not thought through the implications of what I am saying. It obviously has not occurred to him that there are provisions in the Human Rights Bill that cross over the provisions of article 6a. It seems likely to me that the Bill's transfer of jurisdiction to the European Court of Justice will amplify that court's jurisdiction in a way that will create serious difficulties in relation to article 6a.
I condemn the Government for acceding to the treaty and allowing article 6a to go through. I am entirely sure that, in time, my arguments and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and other Conservative Members will be justified and proved right.
The treaty and the article are so invasive of our identity and culture and of the manner in which we, as a tolerant nation, have legislated over the years that I am convinced that, when the time comes, the Government and the Minister will be found to have been in serious default. It is such a serious matter, concerning such fundamental questions, that they will stand condemned. I have no intention of withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert
'and Protocol 7 paragraph (2)'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 22—Subsidiarity: Annual Report—
'.—The Secretary of State shall, within a year of entry into force, and annually thereafter, publish and lay before the House a report on the application in the European Union and the United Kingdom of the principles of subsidiarity laid down in the seventh protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam.'.
New clause 36—Subsidiarity principle: legal advice—
'Within one month of this Act coming to force, the Government shall report to each House of Parliament that it has received specific legal advice from the Attorney General that Protocol 7 to the Treaty of Amsterdam does not prevent existing Community regulations from being repealed in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom.'.

Mr. Streeter: All Conservative Members welcome the principle of subsidiarity. The amendment is designed to highlight the wording of the new protocol on subsidiarity contained in the Amsterdam treaty; far from strengthening that important principle, we believe that it will weaken it.
Subsidiarity is very much a Conservative idea, advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), as Prime Minister, during the Maastricht negotiations and before. It is fair to say that, once again, people throughout Europe are benefiting from an idea that stems from the Conservative party in the United Kingdom.

Sir Michael Spicer: I do not want to be churlish about this—nor do I want to be clever—but I must ask my hon. Friend what regulation has been changed, or what direct action has ever been taken, as a result of subsidiarity.

Mr. Streeter: I was about to make the point that many Conservative Members would wish subsidiarity to go further and become more effective; indeed, when we heard press reports that the Government had brought back a new protocol on subsidiarity, we hoped that they had achieved an improvement, but we read to our disappointment that that was not the case.
If it is right—some of us have reservations—that, as some Labour Members have said, the high tide of European integration has been reached and is receding, perhaps the principle of subsidiarity has played a small part in bringing that about. It is an important principle. I recognise that it has been far from perfect, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. It represents an honest attempt to assert the primacy of the nation state.
In my opinion, such a concept connects favourably with what most people in Europe want. There are politicians throughout Europe who want an increasingly integrated Europe, but I believe that they are out of step with the heartbeat of most of the people of Europe.
Subsidiarity is important, and the relevant wording in the Maastricht treaty is effective. Article 3b states:
the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community.


We must now consider protocol 7 in the Amsterdam treaty, especially paragraph 2, which states:
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'.
4.30 pm
That paragraph shows that the principle of subsidiarity has been expressly subordinated to those very principles, pillars and institutions that created the suffocating, supranational activity in the first place. Far from being improved by protocol 7, the principle of subsidiarity has been neutered and emasculated. Subsidiarity will be not more effective, as everybody in this Committee would wish, but less.
Under the Maastricht treaty, the European Union hired a watchdog and gave it full licence to roam throughout the Community to restrict the extent to which the European Union sought to do those things that could be better done at national level. People had reservations about the effectiveness of that watchdog, but that was the spirit behind Maastricht. Under Amsterdam, that watchdog has been muzzled, and is chained and locked in its kennels. The Minister may not agree, in which case I invite him to make that clear in his response. However, I believe that he has brought back from Amsterdam a watchdog that cannot bark.
Protocol 7 is now long and complex. Instead of a simple principle that everybody understood—although it was ineffectively implemented—we now have a long and complex protocol, full of contradictory statements. That will be food and drink to the European Court of Justice, which will be able to interpret the protocol according to its vision of, and attitude towards, European Union development.
Does anyone in this Committee believe that such interpretation will enhance and support the principle of subsidiarity? Rather, it will seek to give free reign to dominance by the institutions of the European Union. The protocol is long and full of warm words, typical of a new Labour attitude to problem solving. It contains weasel words and is touchy-feely, but unfortunately it does not stand up in the light of day. It will be fertile ground for the European Court of Justice to weave its magic.
Some progress has been made under subsidiarity, and we support some of the programmes that have been brought forward in an attempt to simplify legislation. They were a step in the right direction, and we look forward to further steps. Our main concern about the treaty of Amsterdam is that the principle of subsidiarity will not be further developed and enhanced by protocol 7, but will be confused and taken backwards.
If, as I suspect, the Minister disagrees with me, I hope that he will not in his reply simply give us his usual knockabout. I hope that he will respond to the legal points

that arise from the debate, and that he will be able to reassure the Opposition that the principle of subsidiarity is not merely left in the same place by article 7 but is improved and enhanced. I hope that he will be able to clarify the apparently contradictory nature of some paragraphs of article 7, and that he will reassure us that we do not need to press the amendment to a Division.

Sir Michael Spicer: As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said, subsidiarity was brought forward at the time of the treaty of Maastricht as some sort of quid pro quo for the enormous transfers of power under the treaty, and the tremendous dynamic, and potential, for further transfers of power that lay embedded in its core, particularly in respect of the single currency and the institutional arrangements for that. Even those who did not vote against Maastricht, and members of the Government of the day, were worried about this.
The quid pro quo during the passage of Maastricht legislation was always, "But we have got subsidiarity." That was always the Government's core argument. I remember well that, throughout those debates, Tristan Garel-Jones, who I think is now a Lord, would say that we did not understand the arguments, that subsidiarity was what we had got out of the process. That was considered the enormous bonus that came out of the treaty of Maastricht. Two problems arise, to which we must return in this debate.
First, as I tried to suggest in my earlier intervention, nothing has been achieved through subsidiarity. I think that the Government, and particularly the former Prime Minister, intended that some sort of reversal of power should be involved in the concept of subsidiarity. There was even talk of 25 per cent. of regulations being reconsidered under the heading of subsidiarity. None of that happened. There has not been one reversal. The reason is the acquis communautaire. The process of occupied fields, of the continuum of accretion of powers by the centre, is written into law through the treaty of Rome as amended over time.
The second issue to which many of us referred during the passage of the Maastricht treaty was the fundamental question about subsidiarity: who determines what is to be subsidiary and what is to be centralised? That is always the crucial question in considering subsidiarity. Because of the acquis communautaire, it was clear to many of us that it would have to be determined at the centre. Power could not be devolved sui generis by people simply claiming power at the periphery.
The very concept of subsidiarity inevitably meant greater centralisation—the very opposite of what it purported to be. A central authority had to determine what was to be parcelled out and what was to be retained at the centre.
It was always thus, but at least under the treaty of Maastricht, the decision as to which authority at the centre was to determine what bits were to be parcelled out or to be retained was left a little indeterminate. At least there was an element of obscurity about that, which was something. In the treaty of Amsterdam, however, the matter is spelled out clearly.
The amendments rightly try to remove the terms of the protocol, which suggest:
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the


acquis communautaire and institutional balance: it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law".
That protocol spells out clearly that, henceforth, it shall be the job of the European Court, under the terms of the acquis communautaire, and where it needs to do so, to develop law accordingly. The word "development" appears from an early stage, so we are not just talking about the application of existing laws, but the development of law. That has always been the case, but now it is spelled out under an intergovernmental conference treaty, and thus the European Court will move into sectors unoccupied by law in order to develop it. It will do so in this case with respect to the whole concept of subsidiarity.
At last the matter has been spelled out clearly in black and white. Not only will matters be determined by the centre, which is the complete opposite of the devolution of powers, but they will be determined by treaty in the protocol, if the amendment is not passed, so that the body that shall determine such matters will be the court. The court shall do so even where the treaty does not specify that, because the court will have the power to develop law as laid down by the agreements of Governments if the treaty is ratified.
In the past, in government, I have had disputes with my Front-Bench colleagues about subsidiarity, but today they are absolutely right. They have picked on exactly the provision that needs to be removed from the protocol. The consistent objectives of the previous Conservative Government and the current Labour one have been to devolve power. If they are true to themselves, the Government must remove that centralising element that will be incorporated in the treaty, if it is passed and ratified, and turned into law.
My Front-Bench colleagues were absolutely right to table the three amendments that are related specifically to the acquis communautaire and the court's powers. I hope that the amendments will be pressed to a vote, because then at least we will have established that the Conservative party still believes in devolution.

Mr. David Heath: New clause 22 stands in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell).
The group of amendments under discussion strike at the heart of so much that we need to discuss within the workings of the European Union, and so much that has been obfuscated or avoided for many years. The concept of subsidiarity is one about which hon. Members in all parts of the Committee feel strongly. It is one that has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance for far too many years in Europe.
Although the treaty of Maastricht included the word "subsidiarity" in text for the first time, I must agree with those who argue that it made little or no provision for making that concept a reality in the European Union. It has done nothing to make it an effective check on the centralising tendency within the EU.
The concept of subsidiarity is not, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) has said, simply an assertion of the primacy of national Parliaments. If it were, I have my doubts as to the extent to which my party would support it. Our definition of subsidiarity is quite different—it means giving power to the lowest available level, the nearest to the people. It therefore extends from the

EU seamlessly through national Governments to regional and local levels. The key to understanding subsidiarity is to appreciate that each of those levels is important. Each has a part to play in a properly regulated democracy.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Presumably the hon. Gentleman is making a case for amendment No. 9, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), and which argues that the principle of subsidiarity should also apply under acquis communitaire. Here is a wonderful opportunity to reverse the ratchet of ever-increasing Community competence—an opportunity that has been lost by the Government in their negotiations.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I shall deal with the concept of acquis communautaire in a moment.
My colleagues and I believe that a codification was long overdue, and that it was essential to include one in a form of protocol which gave some teeth to the loosely construed concept of subsidiarity, and made it effective. I disagree with the hon. Member for South-West Devon, the Conservative spokesman, about the European Court of Justice, to which Conservatives seem to have some sort of allergy. I do not believe that it is necessarily an inappropriate means of making the concept justiciable.
Inevitably, there must be an adjudicator, and that adjudicator cannot be an appellant. Therefore, there must be means to weigh the arguments for and against a particular level of decision making being applied at a specific level.

Mr. John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has said that Conservative Members suffer from an allergy to the European Court of Justice. Does he believe that that court is an impartial judicial authority, or does he believe that, in whole or in part, it is signed up to the process of European integration? That fact would necessarily influence its decisions.

Mr. Heath: Any judicial system is only as good as the framework of law within which it works. That is precisely the argument that I am trying to enlarge upon now. It is important that we have a wide revision of the terms of subsidiarity, and that we extend that process as far as possible to the present arrangements governing acquis communautaire. It would be nonsense to start that process by considering matters from now on, and failing to consider retrospective ones.
There is a strong case for applying the principles in the protocol to everything that takes place within the EU. I should like to see that principle extended below the level of the nation state to regional and local government. The Government's welcome decision at long last to accede to the European charter on local self-government is important, but I have yet to see any action deriving from that which gives greater responsibility for decision making to local government level in this country. Perhaps it is early days.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heath: I find it difficult to make a speech when I am constantly interrupted, but I will give way once again.

Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman has made a comment of profound significance in response to my


hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and I want to make sure that it represents the Liberal party's position, because it is important. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal party now believes in the reversal and retrenchment of powers and the abolition of the acquis communautaire? That is of enormous, profound significance, and I was certainly unaware that that was the Liberal party's position.

Mr. Heath: What we have consistently said and what we shall continue to say is that power should be exercised at the lowest available level. We have also consistently said that that is not necessarily the case at the moment, and there are many examples of the European Union acting at Community level on matters that could properly be decided at national or local level. Similarly, there are many examples of the UK national Government taking it upon themselves to make decisions that are better made at local level. One of the basic principles espoused by the Liberal Democrats is to devolve power to the lowest available level.
The test of whether the new protocol on subsidiarity is not the number of cases that are taken to the European Court of Justice, but the extent to which the Commission is made to think again before taking action by the discipline of having to present cogent arguments for having taken a decision at European level which, according to the new protocol, have to be both qualitative and, where possible, quantitative. I hope that that discipline will bite, but I remain to be convinced that it will.
It may be that we shall have to return to this matter at the next intergovernmental conference, because no effective action has resulted from it. At least the incorporation of the protocol gives justiciable grounds to hope that proper consideration will be given to these matters, and that there will be a change from what has become an established norm. If that is the case, it is wholly welcome, which is why I cannot accept the Conservative amendment—it throws out the baby with the bath water.
It is important that we get the protocol incorporated into the treaty and into law. From then on, however, I want regular assessments in the House and elsewhere of how the principles of subsidiarity have been applied to matters that are of importance to Britain, both between the EU and Britain and within Britain. Our amendment seeks to make that a clear discipline on the Government, so that we will have debates on the Floor of the House that will enable us to take up cases where we believe the principle has not been acceded to by the European Union and challenge such action.
I look forward to a body of law or a codification that will make clear what are the spheres of influence of the different levels of government, and to a time when we can be absolutely certain that matters that are properly considered nearer to the individual citizen will not be sucked up in the vortex of higher-level decision making.

Mr. Tim Collins: We cannot allow the speech by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) to pass without comment, because it was a remarkable speech. In the early part, we appeared

to have been taken up to the mountain and shown the promised land. The Liberal Democrats now seemed to be in favour of the repatriation of powers; of the concept that the exchange of powers between nation states and the European Union should not be solely one way, but that there should be the possibility of powers being returned after having been surrendered; and therefore of the acquis communautaire being regarded as not sacrosanct, but amendable.
However, in the second half of the speech, and in the hon. Gentleman's responses to interventions from my hon. Friends, it became clear that—yet again and as usual—the Liberal Democrats were willing the ends but not the means, and that they would be unable to support the amendment in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
I support the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). I believe that the origins of the concept of subsidiarity in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) were entirely honourable and honest. They reflected a wish on his part, in its turn reflecting the wishes of the British people, that there should be an assertion in the European treaties of the natural primacy of the nation state as the democratic unit with which people are most comfortable and of which they are most supportive.
At the time, that was not a naive view for my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister to take, given the context of turbulence in the markets and the politics of many European countries in 1992. That view was expressed by many other people, not least by the European Commission and by the French Government in the run-up to and during the Maastricht referendum of 1992.
Sadly, it appears the comments made by the time by those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who were perhaps a little more cynical and worldly wise in their assessment of the situation, have largely been proved true, as the assurances that were given by the British Government, by many other Governments and by the European Commission have not been readily translated into action since then.
As we look to the protocol present in the Amsterdam treaty that we are debating today, we need to bear in mind that the concept of subsidiarity carries with it some difficulties. There is the word itself: when, in the commercial context, we hear of one company being a wholly-owned subsidiary of another, we accept that it is nothing less than a puppet of a higher authority, and not independent in any sense. We know that the concept of subsidiarity has its origins in the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, but one of that Church's central doctrines is that the person at its head is infallible.

Mr. Cash: As a Catholic, I believe strongly in the tenet:
Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
I do not accept that, in any circumstances, we should allow the concept of subsidiarity based on theological considerations to interfere in the political process.

Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who I think is supporting what I am saying.
The other problem with subsidiarity is that, in some senses, it puts things the wrong way round—it assumes that power naturally stems from the top and therefore has to be devolved by some route to the bottom; whereas most of us who are natural democrats believe that power rests with the people and should be transferred upwards only with the consent of the people, for specific purposes and for a limited period, and not ceded in perpetuity.

Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend's eloquent flow, but, as he was developing his argument, I noticed the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) chuntering from a sedentary position words to the effect that subsidiarity implied decision making at the lowest level. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if that were the case and if the European Union regarded it as being the case, by now a regulation would have been repealed under the subsidiarity principle? The fact that none has been repealed suggests that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is somewhat confused.

Mr. Collins: If the system had worked as it was designed to work, far more than one regulation would have been repealed by now, although I agree with my hon. Friend about the symbolic importance of the fact that not one has been repealed.
In the UK context, the debate often centres on the evils of a federal system, so it is ironic that an undoubtedly federal constitution—that of the United States of America—contains a provision that is far stronger than anything in the EU treaties—that powers which are not specifically provided for the union reside with the individual states. The USA therefore has a federal union that, in many respects and on many legal bases, reserves much more power to the member states than the increasingly centralised EU constitution we are debating today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, whatever the arguments may have been about the practicalities or otherwise of what was set out by member states in 1992, it is clear that the provisions of the treaty of Amsterdam will make matters far worse, not better. They will mean that the text will be justiciable by the European Court of Justice, which court, rightly or wrongly, has an explicit integrationist agenda.
My hon. Friend put his finger on another difficulty when he said that subsidiarity would now be subject, first, to the acquis communautaire, thereby explicitly ruling out those great ambitions that subsidiarity would be used as an engine of repatriating power, repealing directives and removing powers that were no longer valid or necessary; and, secondly, to article F4 of the treaty, which says that the Union will now have the right to arrogate to itself powers to deliver any of objectives of the treaty.
The Amsterdam treaty further amends the objectives of the Maastricht treaty. We know that some phrases that, to the United Kingdom eye, can sometimes seem relatively innocuous, can store up immense long-term political difficulties. One such phrase is "ever closer union". I am sure that, when the UK Government first signed up to it, it was regarded as relatively innocent, but it has become an engine of integration across a range of issues.
5 pm
If we consider that the provisions on subsidiarity will now be subject to the treaty's objectives, and that, after the Amsterdam treaty, the European Union has as one of its purposes to make its entire territory an area of "peace, security and justice", we begin to see that we are constructing a system in which the centralised institutions have carte blanche to do virtually anything they like.
No one in the House, or beyond, would object to the abstract concepts of peace, security and justice—who would? But if someone says that he is creating an organisation which can take upon itself whatever powers it needs to deliver such wide-ranging and sweeping objectives as peace, security and justice, where the only brake on the exercise of those powers—the provisions on subsidiarity—is made explicitly subject to that all-embracing power and that all-encompassing provision, we begin to see that—to pursue the often-used cliché that compares the European Union to a train—the train is heading downhill rapidly.
Not only is there no dead man's handle, but there is no brake. The subsidiarity provisions, which were only the lightest touch on the brake pedal, have been disconnected. The brake fluid has been removed and replaced with, at best, water and probably nothing else. As a result, we now have a rollercoaster that cannot be stopped.
For those reasons, I believe that what started as a brave and noble experiment by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, to find some basis of agreement to create a brake on the process of European integration, has, owing to the present Government's exceptionally bad negotiating tactics, become a further strengthening of the motor of European integration. For that reason above all, this amendment, perhaps more than any other amendment being considered by the Committee, must be passed. Without it, all the assurances that we have heard from the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be entirely worthless.

Mr. Bercow: Subsidiarity has been trailed over a long period as the saviour of British sovereignty. The reality of the past few years has demonstrated clearly that it is nothing of the sort. At best, it is a sop to those concerned with the preservation of self-government; at worst, it is a cloak that disguises or seeks to disguise the ever-increasing arrogation of powers to the central institutions of the European Community, now the European Union. It is a dangerous phenomenon that has been misrepresented.
We can argue the toss for ever and a day about the motives that guided the treaty makers at the time of the treaty of Maastricht and whether they intended it to be a genuinely decentralising force or whether they thought that it was a cloak covering further centralisation. In the final analysis, the motives matter not; the results matter a great deal. We now have the opportunity, after a period of several years, to assess what has happened and to reach a conclusion.
A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have referred to the start of the debate, which, it has to be said, began with the negotiations over the Maastricht treaty. It is important to know what article 3b, which I describe as the infamous article 3b, of the Maastricht treaty said. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) referred to it and his comments bear repetition.
I shall share a private thought with the Committee today: the precise contents of article 3b have been imprinted on my mind for at least six years. I want to share them with the Committee. The article states:
In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".
I never bought into the concept, although I greatly respect the integrity and good intentions of those who did. It always struck me as mealy-mouthed, insubstantial and almost certain to be abused.
In order that the context of the debate about subsidiarity should be understood, let us remind ourselves of some of the reactions to it and the events that followed its inclusion in the treaty of Maastricht. Immediately after the signing of that treaty, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) expressed the belief that the subsidiarity provision of the treaty would be a great protection for the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that he meant it—"Hurrah," said he and others. They thought that it would stop the federalist engine speeding ahead. The truth is that even then—and I remember it—others were not so persuaded.
I refer, for example, to no less an authority than Lord Mackenzie-Stuart, no friend of the anti-federalist cause, but a considerable voice on the subject of European union and integration. He described article 3b as a "prime example of gobbledegook". He said that to regard the formula chosen as a constitutional safeguard showed "great optimism". That was his considered judgment at the time; he believed that it would not protect the rights of nation states and the primacy of national self-government.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend confirm that not only did Lord Mackenzie-Stuart say that in respect of the original proposals for subsidiarity, but he reaffirmed his view after the Birmingham European Council of 16 October 1992 in a letter that he wrote, either to The Times or The Daily Telegraph? He became even more concerned after that summit than he was before.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I noticed Lord Mackenzie-Stuart becoming increasingly cynical about the provision, I too became increasingly cynical.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend might not be aware that some of us were persuaded to vote against the Maastricht treaty—albeit in my case, only at Third Reading—because of our experience in Brussels. In March 1993, the then Secretary General of the Commission, a British civil servant called Williamson, told British Members of Parliament from both sides of the House—I know that Labour Members were equally upset and astonished—that everyone knew that the British had overplayed subsidiarity to a ridiculous extent and that it was not even worth talking about.

Mr. Bercow: I was not aware of that important fact, but I have now been enlightened by my hon. Friend, and his comments do not surprise me one jot. The sheer

cynicism and deviousness of many of those who sought to fob us off with that supposed concession at the time know no bounds.
There was, ultimately, a test of the robustness, the virility, of the subsidiarity provision. That test came on 12 March 1996 when this country heard—I hope with a deep sense of shame—the opinion of the Advocate General in relation to the working time directive. I am delighted to see that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), has raised his eyes from his notes and is paying attention.
What the Advocate General said was a damning indictment of our gullibility in the first instance. On 12 March 1996, the Advocate General gave his opinion on the attempted annulment of the working time directive. He said:
In view of the fact that the objective provided for in article 118a is harmonisation, there is no doubt that the aim of the contested directive can be better achieved by action at Community level than by action at national level.
He was putting it on the line, so clearly that no one could doubt it, that it was always intended that such matters should be determined supranationally, not nationally. Therefore, those who entertained the hope that we could preserve sovereignty in respect of our domestic working practices were to be disappointed.
Many people never supposed for a moment that we could do so. For example, Lord Tebbit of Chingford was never in any doubt about that. He was perceptive about it from the outset. He knew perfectly well that the subsidiarity doctrine would be abused—and sure enough it was, to the extent that we could not even control our own working hours. That is what happened to subsidiarity then.
We now move on in the debate to phase 2—to the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. My hon. Friends will have noticed that the new buzz-word is "proportionality." The objective is not very different: to convey an impression of reasonableness while offering nothing substantive of the sort. It is, in that sense, a slightly preferable word to "subsidiarity", which—for all except those as intellectually distinguished as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—is difficult to understand or interpret. "Proportionality" seems a fairly obvious word and it conveys an impression of reasonableness which is not likely to be matched in practice.
I emphasise the point: under the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, in the treaty of Amsterdam, the doctrines of the occupied field and of the acquis communautaire are established as sacrosanct and not to be challenged. There is no suggestion that anything would be allowed which would override the primacy of those doctrines, which are dear to the heart of every European federalist.
Although some of us were sceptical of the likely effectiveness of subsidiarity at the time of the treaty of Maastricht, some federalists did not want to make even that concession because they were petrified that it would lead to a decentralisation of power. Therefore, this time they were determined to get their own back: to emphasise beyond doubt that central forces within the Community would hold sway, that the acquis communautaire was safe and that the doctrine of the occupied field was not under threat. They succeeded.
Other hon. Members have referred to what the protocol says, and it is important that the debate should respect and reflect the words of the protocol. What does it say?
The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and the objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full"—
not in part, but in full—
of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance".
I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is listening carefully. The protocol continues:
it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national
law
and Community law, and it should take into account Article F(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies'.
Therefore no one can say, "Ah, 'tis unclear; there is scope for optimism," or, in future, "The wool was pulled over our eyes." Neither of those things is or could ever be true. It is clear that the Community is to hold sway.
It must be recorded that there are currently six Labour Members in the Chamber for the consideration of a matter of the most momentous magnitude for the future of this country. A Government Whip has now left the Chamber. Indeed, I thought for a moment that two representatives of Her Majesty's Whips Office were about to absent themselves from the Chamber because they were more interested in the minutiae of Government whipping than in the significance of subsidiarity provisions for the future status and self-governing capacity of our nation.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) rightly referred to the substantive paragraph of the protocol, section (2), which I just quoted, which talks about the way in which the protocol will be applied. It is important also to refer to section (3), which reinforces and complements section (2). It emphasises the fact that in no sense is the protocol a challenge to Community power. Indeed, as hon. Members will see when they study it, it adds:
Community action within the limits of its powers
may
be expanded where circumstances so require".
Therefore, not only shall we not get a net decentralisation of power under the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol, but there is scope for further centralisation.

Mr. Denis MacShane: rose—

Mr. Bercow: Let the Minister not pretend ignorance. Let him not say subsequently that he did not know. He is seeking to drive through the House, under guillotine, a treaty the effect of which will almost certainly be to increase Community power and to diminish the cause of national self-government. That is the reality.
If the Minister disagrees with that thesis—if he has any serious counter to it, bar the knockabout badinage that has come to characterise the sub-standard responses to the debate that we have suffered to date—let him now say what his response is, but it is not good enough for him to dismiss our anxieties. Still less is it good enough for the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—who

I believe feels pained that he is unable vocally to contribute to our debates, and so contents himself with taunting us by showing the disgusting and vulgar, loud European Union socks that he is wearing—to sit and be self-satisfied about it. This is a matter of the utmost seriousness, with portentous consequences for the future of our country.

Mr. Cash: Smelly socks.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) makes a mildly impolite, but possibly apposite, reference to smelly socks. I say to him, in all candour, that the smell of the socks is nothing like as great as the stench of the course of European federalism, from the effects of which the country is suffering. I am sure that we can agree on that point.
The protocol says several things of interest. It says that Community matters shall be defined. Matters for the Community shall have to meet certain tests. A couple of optimistic or naive—or both—Labour Back Benchers may have some hope that the effects of that provision will be minimised, because Community action can be taken only if it meets certain criteria. What are those criteria?
First, we are told that, in order for action by the Community institutions to be taken, an issue should be "transnational" in character. The problem with that is that there is no absolute definition of what constitutes transnational. I would argue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale and the shadow Foreign Secretary would argue, that the regulation of working hours is not a matter of transnational concern but a legitimate preoccupation of elected British politicians in the British legislature. On the other hand—genuinely and with good motives—many Labour Members may contend that it is a legitimate concern of the European institutions.
I do not believe that supranational regulation of working hours is necessary for an effective single market, but some Labour Members might. I simply point out that there is no natural, obvious, broadly acceptable definition of what constitutes transnational. If the Minister is planning to set our minds at rest by saying, "Ah, but it must be a matter of transnational concern; the Community cannot by its own fiat pluck something out of the air and say that it is a matter of transnational concern on which the Community must legislate," I reply that the case is not proven.
The second point is that, in order for Community action to be taken, it should be necessary for the requirements of the treaty to be fulfilled. That gives Conservative Members no succour either, for all that that requires is that those who want maximum Community action should draft clauses that would obviously require such action; alternatively, they should draft clauses to the treaty that could allow for such action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale alluded to that point a few moments ago. He referred to noble but often sweeping objectives which are enshrined in Community law and in treaty obligations. Precisely how they are to be fulfilled is left open. Often it is left open because member states know that there are genuine differences between them over how it would be interpreted. We, the British, are usually patted on the head and told not to worry because nothing concrete is at stake—these are general declarations, in accordance with


the continental approach to law making, not the British insistence on specificity. Of course, at a later stage, these obligations are referred to as justification for centralised action and Community diktat. If we object, we are told that we signed the treaty and the words clearly mean what the majority of countries say they mean. So when the Community legislates, we will have no success if we try to object.
Thirdly, we are told, in relation to this provision, that there should be benefits in scale or effect as a result of Community action. There is no argument to be had there, either. As far as we are concerned, the disbenefits in scale and effect of the application of the working time directive across the EU should have prevented its adoption—but they did not.
It is therefore a wholly ineffective attempt at reassurance if any representative of the Government says that there are tests that have to be met before Community action can be taken. There is none that is absolute. There is none that is dependable. There is none that offers encouragement to those Conservatives who believe that we have been consistently misled, let down and betrayed by the process of EU treaty making.

Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but I want to add a word about tests. We British have always thought that our legal arrangements allowed for specificity, whereas the Roman legal system is based more on general objectives. Indeed, we have often been conned by that difference. The protocol specifically states, however, that the matter should be subject to the general objectives of the treaty. That in itself underlines the importance of what my hon. Friend is saying.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is correct. The federalists have given the game away by saying that the satisfaction of key treaty objectives is what is required to justify Community action—thereby admitting that, as long as they can invoke the high-falutin' terms of the treaty, they can get on and do their business. They feel no need to justify themselves beyond that.
What is the final sop that the treaty offers those of us who are concerned to preserve self-government? It is that, under the terms of the protocol, the Commission will be required to
consult widely before proposing legislation, and wherever appropriate, publish consultation documents.
Is that not enough to warm the cockles of the heart? Is that not a blessed reassurance as we debate the contents of the Amsterdam treaty? Does it not cause the hardest-hearted Euro-sceptic in the Chamber—I look eagerly to find my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), only to find that he has momentarily absented himself—to relent? Nothing of the kind, for it constitutes no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission. It merely represents a challenge to its ingenuity.
Although I deplore the impact of the Commission's activities on the affairs of this country over a long period, I do not think that the people in the Commission are

stupid. It is always wise to know one's enemy. I am in no doubt that the Commission is packed with highly intelligent, dedicated officials—

Mr. MacShane: Like Neil Kinnock?

Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is looking at me in that way because he is a disappointed man. I do not know whether he has ever applied for a job in the Commission and failed to get it, and so is critical of the intellectual powers of Commission officials.

Mr. Rammell: I am staggered by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Do you not begin to understand that whatever views you hold—

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please confine himself to parliamentary language and stop saying "you"?

Mr. Rammell: I apologise, Mr. Lord. Whatever views one holds on the pace and development of European integration, describing the Commission as the enemy just inflames the debate. It does not begin to clarify the issues; indeed, it is a disservice to the issues that we are debating.

Mr. Bercow: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's sincerity: I disagree with his point. Let me be explicit. I believe it necessary to have a central power in the European Community. One can argue the toss also about, say, the Single European Act—but I chose my words advisedly. I referred as I did to the Commission not because I have any personal hatred of, or contempt for, the officials who serve it but because I believe in judging by results.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell) is a regular attender at the proceedings of this Committee; I know that he has well-formed, strongly held opinions on European integration. I disagree with him usually, but I respect him. In the Labour party generally these days, however, there is a preoccupation with form and an inattention to substance. I am concerned about substance, not about being polite for the sake of it. I focus on what the Commission has done to this country. I happen to believe that it has been highly damaging to this country over some years. I also assert that this country has frequently been misled, as often deliberately as accidentally, by the Commission. That is the rationale behind the words that I used.
I said a moment ago that the requirement to consult widely and to publish consultation documents whenever possible constituted no check on the legislative ambitions of the Commission: it was merely a challenge to its ingenuity. My anxiety is that it will want to meet that challenge. It will beaver away, working ferociously hard to identify new areas in which it believes the Community should act.
Again and again we return to the point over which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome skimmed. When there is a dispute, who decides? If we disagree, who is the judge? The answer is: the European Court of Justice. That is the point to which, it seems, the Minister has no meaningful or intelligible response. If he has one now,


I shall happily give way to him. I pause to see whether this distinguished representative of Her Majesty's Government will rise from his seat to favour the House with his wisdom. The answer is that he will not, just as he failed to do the other day.

Mr. Tony McWalter: It is rather offensive for the Minister to be constantly invited to contribute in that way, when the hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the debate will be replied to.

Mr. Bercow: That is the most bizarre observation that I have heard uttered in the House since 1 May 1997. The notion that it is impolite to ask a Minister to respond there and then to a point strikes me as peculiar. We are, after all, engaged in a debate.
The Minister is a pleasant fellow, but there is just a chance—I put it no higher than that—that he might forget to respond to some points. To suggest that he would deliberately choose to ignore certain points would be a gross discourtesy, and I make no such suggestion. His forgetfulness would be entirely inadvertent—the consequence of a 15-hour day and the effect of his long run round Hyde park corner in the morning, which might cause him to neglect to respond to our arguments on subsidiarity. The other day the Minister did respond to a point from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), but he did so poorly. I would hope that he could do so better this time.
I shall focus finally on the Government's attitude to date to the subsidiarity protocol. To my mind, the Government have capitulated to the European Union on that front. Three points illustrate the argument forcefully.
First, the Government have contented themselves with the protocol. They have made no objection whatever to the fact that this far-reaching proposal is enshrined only in a protocol within the treaty, on pages 84 to 86, if memory serves me correctly. The notion that a measure with such profound ramifications for the future self-government of this country should be confined to a protocol, without a murmur of protest from the Minister, is unacceptable. It is unworthy of a Minister to commend to the House such a lamentable capitulation to the European Union.
Did the Minister even try to ensure that something better was on offer? Did he race—we all know that he runs regularly and fast—after his opposite numbers in the EU and argue with them about it? Nay, there is no evidence that he did anything of the kind. He was content to accept a protocol further to consolidate the power relationship between the European Community and Britain, in favour of the former.
The second point about the Government's capitulation is that they have effectively ganged up with the European Court of Justice against the national constitutions of member states. Germany, France and Denmark have consistently argued that their national written constitutions supersede treaty obligations. The Community now contends otherwise. It seems that the British Labour Government want to support the Community and attack those who depend on their national constitutions. That is unwise. We have no such national constitution. Others do, and they depend on it for the preservation of their sovereignty. It is wrong for the Minister to line up with the ECJ in that way.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister has made no protest about the protocol. If the Minister wishes to argue to the contrary, no doubt he will rise, notwithstanding the exhortations of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). The Minister will be anxious always and everywhere to defend the effectiveness of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Pope: Hear, hear.

Mr. Bercow: I might have known. There is no subsidiarity in the Whips Office, but one is told that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) is in the Blairite faction, as opposed to the Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown), who is in the Brown faction. [Interruption.] That is amply confirmed by the comments of other hon. Members.
If the Minister wishes to rise to defend the Prime Minister, he may. Our understanding is simple. The Prime has in no way criticised the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol. My recollection—I shall be advised otherwise if I am mistaken—is that in his statement of 18 June to the House following the Amsterdam conference, the Prime Minister hardly referred to the subsidiarity and proportionality protocol of the treaty. He alluded to many other points, and attempted to sell it as a great deal for Britain. Whether, in skipping through the subsidiarity provision, he accidentally missed the significance of pages 84 to 86, we are none the wiser. Whether it was the broad-brush approach, or whether he was so anxious to say, "I have to say," that he did not manage to focus on subsidiarity, I know not. [Interruption.] It was, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) points out, a plot, the details of which my right hon. and learned Friend may wish to expose later. The Prime Minister had nothing serious to say on the subject of subsidiarity then, and he has not since.
The truth can be simply stated. The power of the European Union over the affairs of this country has grown. That power is growing. Under the provisions of the treaty and the subsidiarity protocol, it will continue to grow. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the time will come, and it will not be long from now, when that power and the drift in the direction of more Community power will need to be arrested and reversed. If it is not and we let down future generations, that betrayal will not be forgotten and it will not be forgiven.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am somewhat abashed to be following the precedent of my three hon. Friends, whose eloquence was beyond all measure greater than mine.

Mr. MacShane: No, no.

Mr. Letwin: In this case, genuinely, yes.
I shall deal with much slighter and more particular points, relating to the way in which protocol 7 has been drafted. I draw the Committee's attention to the concept of proportionality. Most of the discussion has concentrated on the notion of subsidiarity, although my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) mentioned proportionality.
Proportionality is described in the first paragraph as a principle
according to which any action by the Community shall not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaty",
as my hon. Friend mentioned. Some of us have sat for many hours in one of the European Standing Committees, where a series of directives have come before us that have been defended by Ministers. We have frequently asked whether the measure in question went beyond what was necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty. On every occasion, we have been assured that the objectives of the treaty were sufficiently grand in scope to justify the particular measure in hand.
An inspection of the entire range of possible directives, going far beyond the directives that have so far come before us—directives of huge scope and imagination—would reveal that the objectives in the treaty, which have, of course, been enlarged, as my hon. Friends have repeatedly pointed out, are sufficiently great to justify them.
There is no challenge in the challenge that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham suggested had been posed to the Commission—no ingenuity is required—because the objectives are so generally couched that brake in terms of conformity with objectives, like the proportionality brake, becomes devoid of meaning and application. We will never, I speculate, find a case where the Commission proposes a directive or considers the proposition of a directive and then discovers that the rule of proportionality affects the formation or the application of that directive. That is why I suspect that the attention of the Committee has been almost wholly upon the principle of subsidiarity.
There is a great difference between the way in which proportionality is described in the protocol and the treatment of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is linked quite specifically not to the objectives of the treaty but, in paragraph (5), to the objectives of the proposed action. It might be thought that, somehow or other, that narrowed matters and gave us at least the beginning of some check on the development of Community action.
It might be thought in the case of a particular directive—I shall choose an uncontroversial example, such as the ban on tobacco advertising—that, if we could show that the objectives of the proposed action could not be sufficiently achieved within the framework of the nation state, we could throw out the directive. The wording of paragraph (5) gives us some hope that that aim could be achieved. It replicates the wording of article 3b of the Maastricht treaty, which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, to his great credit, is able to remember. Even if one has an impoverished memory and is required to read it, one can see that the article is couched in those terms.
My hon. Friends have pointed out that much of that hope is removed by paragraph (2) of protocol 7, which makes it abundantly clear that, whatever argument we might make about the tobacco advertising directive, it could never be effective if it could be shown to be based on an existing acquis communautaire. That removes the first leg of a possible argument. Secondly, we would not be able to make the argument if it could be shown that the directive in some way cohered with, was based upon

or sprang out of the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding relationships between the Community and the states.
We might find also that we could not make the argument because it might be shown that in a particular case it was necessary for the Union to arm itself with the directive to attain its objectives and carry through its policies. That is the point to which I shall refer specifically this afternoon. There is a great conceptual link between the notion of subsidiarity based on the objective of a proposed action and the notion of subsidiarity as something to be applied only in light of the ability of the Union to give itself the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies.
Linking those two notions makes it clear what the protocol on subsidiarity, phrased in those terms, is telling us: a directive must not be challenged on the basis of subsidiarity if it can be shown that the directive in question is a carrying through of a policy adopted by the Community and is therefore necessary to the carrying through of that policy. Upon reflection, one can see that that is a wholly remarkable state of affairs. We have a protocol that purports to limit Community action, the genuine meaning of which is that, if the Community adopts a certain policy, it is reasonable for it to adopt a directive because it will ipso facto cohere with its objectives in having adopted that policy. Having adopted a policy and a directive coherent with that policy, we can say nothing against the directive on the grounds of subsidiarity.
If I knew how to construct brakes on my behaviour that consisted of my informing the police that it was legitimate for me to do anything that cohered with an objective that was a matter of my policy, I should be a happy man. The fact is that, in general, when one tries to create legislative constraints, one couches them in terms other than those that depend entirely on the proposition that whatever Mr. X wishes to do becomes legitimate by virtue of his wishing to do it.
I am genuinely puzzled, because, even if Ministers were profoundly dozy during the Amsterdam negotiations—we have evidence of that from other sources relating to different parts of the treaty—I cannot believe that the Foreign Office does not contain anyone who is able to engage in the construction that I have just outlined.

Mr. Cash: I do not wish to disturb in any way the brilliance of my hon. Friend's analysis, but does he recall the words of Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking-Glass", who said,
a word …means just what I choose it to mean …The question is, which is to be master—that's all."?

Mr. Letwin: I have learnt much about treaties at the feet of my hon. Friend. He is right in his implication that the situation is even worse than I have portrayed: if the words were not so clear, the European Court would be the arbiter of their meaning—and we can guess how that arbitration would run.
However, the strange thing is that my hon. Friend may not be quite correct, because the words are clear—even to someone of a sceptical inclination—and they must have been clear to members of the Foreign Office who were


supposedly supporting Ministers at the negotiations. Therefore, the full meaning of those words must have been communicated to the Minister, to the Foreign Secretary and to the Prime Minister. They must be aware of this state of affairs. If they are, it is strange that they have not told the British public that subsidiarity now means that any directive may be adopted so long as it coheres with the objectives of the European Union.
That gives me genuine cause for concern that I may have misinterpreted the protocol. I genuinely hope that, for once—and not as a debating point—the Minister will answer that point. I hope that he will provide some reassurance and confirm that my interpretation is fallacious. If it is not, we have buried utterly the concept of subsidiarity—alas, the concept of proportionality was never alive; so we shall have two dead concepts and a protocol that has no meaning. I fear that my hon. Friends are right and that, at worst—in this case, the worst is the truth—we will be left with a cloak for the expansionist intentions of the European Union.

Mr. Blunt: I shall try, in my rather inadequate manner, to pick up some of the brilliant points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The first concerns the opportunity, presented to the Government in the conduct of the negotiations, that has been lost so lamentably.
In introducing the concept of subsidiarity—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred so effectively—my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, played the French and the other continentals at their own game. He introduced an idea that, surrounded initially by warm and unobjectionable language, meant very little in terms of treaty obligations at Maastricht. However, Britain's ultimate objective was to develop a line of policy, translated into treaty requirements, that had some teeth.
Tragically, the Government changed on 1 May, and the opportunity that had been presented in the conduct of treaty negotiations at Amsterdam was lost. The ball was passed to the Labour party, which promptly dropped it. There was an opportunity to put into the treaty language on subsidiarity that meant that the application of subsidiarity to the acquis communautaire would have real teeth. It appears that that policy is supported by the Liberal Democrats. In a sense, that is itself sadness enough.
At the same time, in the conduct of the negotiations, we saw an example of where the French and other continentals were successful at the same game in a different sphere; the defence negotiations. There was language about eventual common defence that could mean anything. It was happily signed up to as, in a sense, a concession to an idea that had no teeth at Maastricht. It was turned into the progressive framing of defence policy and an absolute commitment to progress. Our partners in Europe will be able to ask, "Where is the progress if there is none?" and hold us to the terms of the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset talked about the concept of proportionality. It seems bizarre to have a treaty provision that defines something as unobjectionable as some sense of proportion in terms of

what the actions of the Community should be. Should not that apply to the vast majority of the way in which the Union works? Only, perhaps, if an organisation is rapidly taking on some of the characteristics of "Alice in Wonderland"—to judge by some of its treaty provisions—will we be in this place debating a design of the European Union.
My central point is about use of language. The ideas of subsidiarity and proportionality are meant to sound reasonable—I return to the point made so brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The trouble with the conduct of much of the European debate—not only the treaty of Amsterdam, but over decades—has been the amount of disingenuous debate and information that has been put into the public domain.
European integration is a perfectly honourable idea. I respect people who hold the cause dear for the highest of motives. If only they were prepared to make their case with honesty, clarity and vigour to the people of our country, we could engage in a proper debate about the merits of the argument.
Some of us fear that the process of integration is a danger to the entire European project and the achievement of peace between nations since the end of the second world war. We fear that progress towards economic and monetary union is coming far too fast and far too soon, with the people of the United Kingdom—certainly—blissfully unaware of the nature of the dangers of that process and of the change that will take place in their politics if the train is allowed to continue along its track.
When the Minister replies, I ask him to treat the Committee with respect, to use language fairly and honestly and to be clear about the Government's exact objectives. I ask him not to cloak concessions and agreements made at Amsterdam with disingenuous language that is designed to suggest that the agreements are something that they are not.

Mr. McWalter: I did not intend to speak, but it might be helpful to introduce some counter-balance to some of the things that have been said. A claim being made for the Government's case is that words are increasingly being manipulated to mean whatever we decide to make them mean. The expression, which has been quoted, comes, the Committee might be interested to know, from Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass" who said that words can mean whatever we take them to mean or whatever we decide them to mean. When Alice objects to that proposition, Humpty Dumpty replies that it is not a matter of language—the question is
which is to be master".
The debate has an "Alice in Wonderland" feel. Opposition Members' arguments boil down to the expression "acquis communautaire". It is the pivot for everything that they have said. The willingness to co-operate and work together, as understood by members of the European Community, seems strange and hostile to Conservative Members. They cannot begin to connect with the idea that we might want to have a constructive and co-operative relationship with our European neighbours.
That being so, they say that we are faced with—well, it cannot be a Trojan horse because it is French—some sort of Parisian horse, or whatever, that allows us—

Mr. Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McWalter: I shall give way shortly. Please let me get started.
The argument of Conservative Members is that others are to be allowed to run roughshod over all issues that involve national sovereignty and the independent action that we as members of the United Kingdom would want.
The issues before us have many more aspects than those outlined by Conservative Members. A first-order problem concerns the way in which our Europe and our country operate. For example, the problem of acid rain is obviously transnational. One country's pollution can be another's acid rain. When I read protocol 7(5), I find, basically, a provision that expresses how important it is to justify Community action and to ensure that the principles of subsidiarity should be met.
The guidelines state that "the issue under consideration" should have
transnational aspects which cannot be satisfactorily regulated by action by Member States".

Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. McWalter: I was asked to allow an intervention earlier; I shall take that one now.

Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman is basing his speech on a false premise. He is saying that Conservative Members who are concerned about the progress of European integration are against co-operation with our partners in Europe. We are passionately in favour of co-operation and partnership with our partners in Europe. It is we who are grounding these objectives in their practicality. The developments that the hon. Gentleman is supporting will place an onerous burden on the individual nations of Europe and therefore destroy co-operation and partnership between the nations of Europe. That is the danger.
I would argue that my right hon. and hon. Friends who take the view that I have outlined are, in a sense, more passionately pro-European than those who are calling for European integration. Down the road of integration lies the end of the European project.

Mr. McWalter: The problem is that voluntaryism is often insufficient. I take up the second part of paragraph (5), which refers to where
actions by Member States might
significantly damage Member States' interests".
One state may decide that it is rather cheap to produce something in a way that causes pollution and a neighbouring state might decide that it would like some action to be taken to prevent that happening. We need to have a sense of voluntary co-operation, and it is clear that the extent of it is extremely important.
We try to get as much as we can by way of voluntary co-operation, but the European Community commits us to membership of a framework within which we must take seriously the fact that some individual member states' actions should be restricted by the greater union of states.

Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McWalter: I shall move on to the third section of the paragraph before I give way. It states:
action at Community level would produce clear benefits by reason of its scale or effects compared with action at the level of the Member States.
The whole package makes sense in respect of issues such as acid rain. It is not simply an absurd recipe, as was suggested earlier, whereby the only limits and constraints on Community action are sui generis, or part of the treaty itself.

Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman's mask has slipped. He spoke soothingly about the virtues of co-operation. He then discovered that Conservative Members objected not to co-operation, but to unwarranted imposition. Citing acid rain is an easy case, but it does not prove the point. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the European Court of Justice, in foisting upon us its preference for the working time directive, was co-operating with the United Kingdom or telling her what to do?

6 pm

Mr. McWalter: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that acid rain is an easy case, clearly he knows more than I do about the solution to such issues. The problem of acid rain requires concerted and difficult transnational agreements that are not voluntary but need to be binding in the interests of our planet. We are a long way short of achieving that. The heart of the issue between Conservative Members and ourselves is often where to draw the line.
The hon. Gentleman clearly agrees that the business of not exporting pollution requires effective transnational agencies, but some of us are of the view—it is enshrined in the earliest drafts of the treaty of Rome—that anti-competitive practices, for example, are also important. If one nation adopts a framework for its employment law that seeks to export not its pollution but its unemployment, that may be of equal concern under the competition rules.

Sir Michael Spicer: The problem with the acid rain argument, which is often used to support the line of thinking in which the hon. Gentleman is currently engaged, is that most acid rain comes from non-European countries.

Mr. McWalter: Particularly since the reunification of Germany, a great deal of it comes from European countries, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware.

Mr. Bercow: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely and with interest. He refers to anti-competitive action: that action is unacceptable; it is therefore necessary for the Community to take a central


view and implement a Community policy in the context of the working time directive. In principle, what is the difference between that and a common taxation system? Although it seems unlikely under a Labour Government, if the United Kingdom has lower taxation rates than other European Union countries, is that not anti-competitive? In principle, does the hon. Gentleman rule out the adoption of a common direct taxation system within the European Union—yes or no?

Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman's intervention shows that, ultimately, all such matters need to be decided by partners in the European project trying to decide where that borderline lies.

Mr. Bercow: What does that mean?

Mr. McWalter: There is no need to go mad about it. We accept that there is scope for genuine debate about where the lines should be drawn. Some member states may take the view that what we decide to do about immigration policy, for example, is a Europewide matter. The British Government have not taken that view. We have the right to take the view that it is not a matter of European concern. The Opposition should grant the Government some generosity of spirit about the way in which they want to work for the British national interest within an effective European Union that can do much to improve the conditions in the world economy.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that David Begg and a number of others wrote an interesting paper about subsidiarity in the context of pollution and transnational matters entitled "Making Sense of Subsidiarity: How much centralisation for Europe?" they wrote:
The quality of water drunk by a Dane does not change the welfare of a Spaniard, and there is prima-facie evidence that this directive flies in the face of the principle of subsidiarity.
Furthermore, when the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities considered the matter, it concluded:
while the case against some aspects of the bathing water directive on subsidiarity grounds is well-founded, it may be politically unrealistic to look for the repeal of the directive.
In other words, there was a sense of alarm and despondency among members of the House of Lords Select Committee, including some distinguished jurists, because they knew perfectly well that, although there was every reason to repudiate the bathing water directive, politically, it would go through. That completely undermines the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. McWalter: I am about to conclude, but I shall address the point. In any loosely liberal political system, there is always an ebb and flow between the different participants in any power regime. Sometimes powers are given to central authorities, sometimes they are removed. On the basis of the conduct of the previous British Government, many people might have concluded that the consolidation of power by the Cabinet and the Prime Minister was so excessive that there would never again be the prospect of effective devolution or impetus to local government. Luckily, however, there was a rising up against that philosophy, and, as a result, we now have a Government who are committed to devolution, to local

government and to empowering people to take more control over their own lives. What applies in Britain also applies in Europe.
I thank the House for listening to me, and I conclude by saying that this is an excellent treaty and I am very happy to support the Bill.

Mr. Cash: Article 3b of the Maastricht treaty and the rubbish that that generated, the con trick that it involved and its amplification under the Amsterdam treaty, show that, effectively, member states are saying, "We can do what we like, but we shall wrap it up with minimal reservations so long as the lawyers are well paid for dancing on the head of a pin." Basically, the whole issue boils down to that.
We have heard some superb speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I pay tribute to them, as they addressed the heart of the matter, arguing the case intellectually and with reason. In the context of the development of the European Union, for practical purposes nothing has been changed by the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, although, where Maastricht ran into difficulties, there have been spurious attempts to produce alternative arguments and to put a spin on it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out, the acquis communautaire lies at the heart of the problem. It is spelled out in article B of the treaty, which states:
The Union shall set itself the following objectives:
including
to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it with a view to considering to what extent the policies and forms of cooperation introduced by this Treaty may need to be revised with the aim of ensuring the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the Community.
When one puts forward proposals to ensure the effectiveness of the mechanisms and institutions of the community, no notice is taken.
The treaty goes on:
The objectives of the Union shall be achieved as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the conditions and the timetable set out therein while respecting the principle of subsidiarity, as defined in Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European Community.
That means that we shall continue as before. We set out certain objectives, and everything continues inexorably towards a process that includes the acquis communautaire, the ratchet effect and the fact that nothing that has been decided can be challenged. As my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale, for Buckingham and for West Dorset have pointed out, the moment that we raise any objections, we are thrown back on to the objectives of the treaty. Inevitably, we go in a complete circle.
The process is a disgrace, because it puts forward, in words set out in a treaty that are justiciable and subject to the European Court of Justice, arrangements that are self-fulfilling and self-denying. On the one hand, they set out the objectives, but on the other they purport to give rise to the possibility of questioning them. However, questioning takes us back to the objectives, which include the application by the European Court of Justice of original objectives that go back to the intentions incorporated in the Maastricht treaty and, in many


respects, before that. That is a continuous process. The more one looks at the protocol, the more obvious that becomes.
The objectives of the treaty are not what is necessary to achieve the kind of Europe that is essential for harmonious relations into the next century. The treaty says:
In exercising the powers conferred on it, each institution shall ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is complied with. It shall also ensure compliance with the principle of proportionality".
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said, that takes us back to what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaty, which are set out in the preamble. It is well known that the Court of Justice has to have regard to the preamble to decide how to interpret the provisions. That is different from the way in which we have interpreted law in the United Kingdom. We come back again and again to the circular argument.
Paragraph (3) of the protocol says:
The principle of subsidiarity does not call into question the powers conferred on the European Community by the Treaty, as interpreted by the Court of Justice.
So we get another circular argument within the circular argument. The Court of Justice has to prevail if the question arises whether it should have jurisdiction. The whole thing is gobbledegook, as Lord Mackenzie-Stuart pointed out. It makes nonsense of the process of European integration.
I do not understand how the Minister can justify the provisions. The worst of it is that, after going through all the arguments and making attempts to persuade, no further argument can be engaged in. What do we do now, given that we get no answers from the Minister and no arguments from Labour? There is only one Labour Member present on the Back Benches. We are going nowhere—[Interruption.] Well, there are some on the left- hand side of the Chamber who are doing and saying nothing. We have to take more effective and immediate action to stop the nonsense that is going on.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall be brief. Indeed, my contributions to the Committee have been becoming increasingly brief. I should like to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about the circular argument.
The protocol says:
Subsidiarity is a dynamic concept and should be applied in the light of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It allows Community action within the limits of its powers to be expanded where circumstances so require, and conversely, to be restricted or discontinued where it is no longer justified.
That is what we had all understood subsidiarity to mean—powers could be given back. That is what it says clearly in the second part of the third paragraph of the protocol. However, the first part of that paragraph says:
The criteria referred to in the second paragraph of Article 3b of the Treaty shall relate to areas for which the Community does not have exclusive competence.
In other words, subsidiarity means control over what we have not given to the Community—it is what is left. We must enjoy it while we still have it.

Mr. Doug Henderson: The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) should enjoy it quickly.
In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), let me say the Government cannot accept the amendment, but I hope to announce, in a future debate this evening, a review of the way in which matters discussed at the Council of Ministers are reported. I hope that that will cover issues of subsidiarity.
We have had an interesting debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) was able to intervene. He provided some necessary balance, making some important points on the sensible provisions in the treaty.
The debate started with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who is not in his place, saying that the Conservative party believed in devolution. That is an interesting revelation. I was not aware of that policy change. We have heard a lot of arguments about subsidiarity in the European Union, but we have not heard much from the Conservatives about subsidiarity within a nation state, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out. If the Conservatives are to be consistent, they must examine subsidiarity not only in the European Union, but in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Letwin: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I shall not give way at the moment, because I fear that I may run out of time.
We have witnessed an internal debate in the Conservative party on the provisions. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), whose contributions we look forward to in every debate, said that, when he was a special adviser to Jonathan Aitken in the previous Government, he felt that he had been fobbed off with the provisions on subsidiarity that were drawn up at Edinburgh.

Mr. Bercow: If the Minister wants to make a debating point, he ought at least to get the chronology right. The original subsidiarity proposal was enshrined in the treaty of Maastricht in 1991. I had the pleasure to serve as the special adviser to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1995. Get it right, Minister.

Mr. Henderson: It is a minor but interesting point whether the hon. Gentleman was fobbed off before he worked for the coin of Jonathan Aitken or while he was working for the coin of Jonathan Aitken.

Mr. Blunt: The Minister should be prepared to send the Excalibur file of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to him so that it can be checked.

Hon. Members: It is too big.

Mr. Henderson: It is too big, indeed. I think that I shall leave that matter, lest I give away Government secrets.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins)—I have no doubt that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him inaccurately—made the point that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had the right intention on subsidiarity. He would say that, as someone who was—I think—the right hon. Gentleman's press secretary at that time, although I say


sincerely that the hon. Gentleman's loyalty is respected. His point was that the subsidiarity provisions operated under the Conservative Government had not worked or been effective.
That contrasts interestingly with the view put by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he opened the debate. I am sure that he, too, will correct me if I paraphrase him incorrectly. His view was that the subsidiarity provisions under the Conservative Government had worked or had had the potential to work, but had been undermined by the provisions that were agreed in Amsterdam, which the Committee is debating. So we have heard three different views from Conservative Members on the content of the previous provisions under Maastricht and how they relate to the current provisions. Incidentally, if the newspapers are correct, I should extend kind regards to the hon. Gentleman on his birthday.

Mr. Bercow: It is my birthday.

Mr. Henderson: There is a spate of birthdays.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon argued that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty stops the proper application of the protocol, yet the wording to which he referred is almost identical to the wording that was drawn up under the Edinburgh guidelines and negotiated by his party. Therefore, I find it very strange that he is taking such a position.
I shall—hopefully—explain my understanding of what was agreed in Amsterdam. Under Maastricht, article 3b set out the principle of subsidiarity in very general terms. Protocol 7 of the Amsterdam treaty spells out in detail the procedures that must be undergone to demonstrate that the principle of subsidiarity has been satisfied. That is categorised in paragraphs 4 and 5. That will provide a clearer test for the courts to apply if a measure is challenged on subsidiarity grounds. Equally, it will give the Council clear grounds on which to hold the Commission to the principle of subsidiarity when it proposes legislation.
The advantage to us in Britain is that, if we believe that a matter should be dealt with under subsidiarity and the Commission does not deal with it in such a way, it would be open to any nation state, including ourselves, to go to the European Court of Justice to redress the matter. That would have been extremely difficult under the previous provisions.
We have a coherent set of proposals. They represent a way forward and give practical effect to the concept of subsidiarity, which has been supported in principle by Front-Bench teams on both sides of the Committee.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friends and I have listened with great interest to the Minister's response. They were seeking bankable reassurances; hoping even that our interpretation of protocol 7 was in some way incorrect; hoping that British interests had been protected in Amsterdam after all. I listened carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech, and it is clear that no such reassurances have been given. We have no option but to conclude that the very powerful arguments made throughout the debate by Conservative Members are correct. The vital principle of subsidiarity has not been enhanced by protocol 7. In fact, it has been diminished by protocol 7.
A concept already considered by many to be less than perfect is now seriously undermined—holed below the waterline. It is clear—the Minister has not contradicted us in any way—that paragraph (2) of protocol 7 makes the concept of subsidiarity subject to the acquis communautaire, the European Court of Justice and article F4.
In a sparkling speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) got one tiny thing wrong. The Prime Minister did refer to the principle of subsidiarity on 16 June following the Amsterdam summit. He said that it had real teeth following the agreement of protocol 7. However, as we have heard, nothing could be further from the truth. The protocol has pulled the teeth of the principle. Perhaps, again, the Prime Minister did not understand what he had signed.
We have witnessed one of those parliamentary occasions on which the strength of Conservative Members' arguments has increased as the debate has gone on and the compelling nature of our arguments has been there for all to see. Perhaps it is possible to have a different view on the effectiveness of the subsidiarity provisions agreed under Maastricht, but, having listened to the debate carefully, it is not possible to have a differing view on the effectiveness of the Amsterdam treaty's subsidiarity provisions. The treaty seriously undermines the principle of subsidiarity and seriously damages the national interest.
It was not the Opposition's intention to push the amendment to a Division because, thanks to the ridiculous and iniquitous guillotine that the Government have imposed on us, it would have a knock-on effect for later debates, which are also important. However, such has been the power of Conservative Members' arguments, such is the importance of the issue and such has been the paucity of the Minister's response that we are left with no alternative but to put the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 135, Noes 362.

Division No. 131]
[6.27 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Arbuthnot, James
Collins, Tim


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Bercow, John
Curry, Rt Hon David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Blunt, Crispin
Day, Stephen


Body, Sir Richard
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Brady, Graham
Evans, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Faber, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fabricant, Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fallon, Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Flight, Howard


Burns, Simon
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Butterfill, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Fraser, Christopher



Gale, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Garnier, Edward


Clappison, James
Gibb, Nick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gill, Christopher






Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Page, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Pickles, Eric


Gray, James
Prior, David


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, Rt Hon William
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hawkins, Nick
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Heald, Oliver
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Horam, John
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hunter, Andrew
Soames, Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard



Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Key, Robert
Steen, Anthony


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Streeter, Gary


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Swayne, Desmond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lansley, Andrew
Townend, John


Leigh, Edward
Trend, Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Tyrie, Andrew


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Walter, Robert


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Waterson, Nigel


Loughton, Tim
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Luff, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Madel, Sir David
Woodward, Shaun


Malins, Humfrey
Yeo, Tim


Maples, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Maude, Rt Hon Francis



Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Tellers for the Ayes:


May, Mrs Theresa
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. John Whittingdale.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Ainger, Nick
Brake, Tom


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Brand, Dr Peter


Alexander, Douglas
Breed, Colin


Allan, Richard
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Allen, Graham
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Austin, John
Burden, Richard


Baker, Norman
Burgon, Colin


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Burnett, John


Banks, Tony
Burstow, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Butler, Mrs Christine


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bayley, Hugh
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Berry, Roger
Cann, Jamie


Blears, Ms Hazel
Caplin, Ivor


Blizzard, Bob
Casale, Roger


Borrow, David
Cawsey, Ian


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)





Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chidgey, David
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grogan, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gunnell, John



Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David


Coaker, Vernon
Harris, Dr Evan


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coleman, Iain
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Colman, Tony
Healey, John


Connarty, Michael
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cooper, Yvette
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Corbett, Robin
Hepburn, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heppell, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hesford, Stephen


Cotter, Brian
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Crausby, David
Hoey, Kate


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Home Robertson, John


Cummings, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hope, Phil


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dafis, Cynog
Howells, Dr Kim


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darvill, Keith
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davidson, Ian
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Illsley, Eric


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Dismore, Andrew
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dobbin, Jim
Jamieson, David


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jenkins, Brian


Donohoe, Brian H
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Doran, Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn, Hatfield)


Dowd, Jim



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Edwards, Huw
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Efford, Clive



Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Ennis, Jeff
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Etherington, Bill
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Fearn, Ronnie
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Flint, Caroline
Keetch, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Follett, Barbara
Kemp, Fraser


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Khabra, Piara S


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Kidney, David


Foulkes, George
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fyfe, Maria
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Galloway, George
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gapes, Mike
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Gardiner, Barry
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Laxton, Bob


Gerrard, Neil
Leslie, Christopher


Gibson, Dr Ian
Levitt, Tom


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Godman, Norman A
Linton, Martin


Godsiff, Roger
Livingstone, Ken






Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rendel, David


Llwyd, Elfyn
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooney, Terry


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruane, Chris


McIsaac, Shona
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McNulty, Tony
Ryan, Ms Joan


MacShane, Denis
Salter, Martin


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sanders, Adrian


McWalter, Tony
Sarwar, Mohammad


McWilliam, John
Savidge, Malcolm


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sawford, Phil


Mallaber, Judy
Sedgemore, Brian


Mandelson, Peter
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Martlew, Eric
Skinner, Dennis


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Meale, Alan
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Merron, Gillian



Michael, Alun
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Soley, Clive


Milburn, Alan
Southworth, Ms Helen


Miller, Andrew
Spellar, John


Moffatt, Laura
Squire, Ms Rachel


Moran, Ms Margaret
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Morley, Elliot
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mountford, Kali
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mudie, George
Stringer, Graham


Mullin, Chris
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stunell, Andrew


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Hara, Eddie
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Olner, Bill
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tipping, Paddy


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Pendry, Tom
Truswell, Paul


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pike, Peter L
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Tyler, Paul


Pond, Chris
Vaz, Keith


Pope, Greg
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wareing, Robert N


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Watts, David


Primarolo, Dawn
Webb, Steve


Prosser, Gwyn
White, Brian


Purchase, Ken
Wicks, Malcolm


Rammell, Bill
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Rapson, Syd
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)





Willis, Phil
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Wise, Audrey



Wood, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Woolas, Phil
Mr. John McFall and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after half-past Six o' clock, THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN put forwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to the Order [17 December].

Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 18

ENHANCEMENT OF ROLE OF PARLIAMENT

'.—Pursuant to the Protocol on the Role of National Parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, Her Majesty's Government shall—

(a) make available to both Houses of Parliament all legislative proposals or proposals for measures within one working day after transmission to the Government, and
(b) not agree to such proposals in the Council until six weeks have elapsed from their transmission to both Houses of Parliament.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Council meetings: information for Parliament—
'.—Pursuant to the protocol on Role of National Parliaments in the European Union annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam, Ministers of the Crown shall, following each meeting of the Council of Ministers, make available to both Houses a synopsis of the meeting, with a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government.'.

Mr. Heath: Both the new clauses stand in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). These are important new clauses, although I hope a brief debate on them will suffice. They will do what the Government have professed themselves willing to do in other circumstances, which is to lay before the House at the earliest possible opportunity proposals that are to be discussed in Europe, and to ensure that proper scrutiny takes place.
At the moment, there is a gap in the provision, which is why we tabled new clause 18. The treaty of Amsterdam requires that all proposed measures should be submitted to the European Parliament and Council, and that no decisions should be taken in the Council until six weeks have elapsed. The gap is that, if the matter is a third-pillar proposal—an intergovernmental decision—it is not subject to the six-week rule—or it may be, as there is some ambiguity in the rules. Our amendment requires all proposals to be subject to the six-week rule.
At the moment, the scrutiny reserve, as it is called, does not apply in that area. There is a good reason why the proposal should be incorporated, and we are


backed in that belief by the Select Committee on European Legislation, which concluded on 18 July 1996, in its 27th report on the scrutiny of European business, that
the extension of the 1990 resolution to inter-governmental business need cause the Government no difficulty".
I entirely agree with that proposition and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
New clause 18 would also tackle two potential difficulties with the supply of documentation. The treaty of Amsterdam requires that European Commission Green and White Papers and communications shall be transmitted "promptly" to national Parliaments and that proposals for legislation should be
made available in good time
to member Governments, so that they may transmit them to their national Parliaments. It seems entirely appropriate that we should use the speed suggested in those proposals to ensure that the documents are also available to us as Members of Parliament. The new clause would ensure that the Government supplied proposals in their possession to hon. Members within one working day. Again, there seems to be no difficulty in that.
6.45 pm
New clause 23 would ensure that, following each meeting of the Council of Ministers, a Minister would provide a synopsis of the meeting with a statement to the House of the Government's position. Again, that is important for transparency, as has been recognised by Ministers: when the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Lords Select Committee on the European Communities in July, he said:
what we do—and I am happy to give my mind to improving this—is publish very quickly after each Council a summary of what has taken place.
That does not happen uniformly throughout Government Departments.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that good practice will be extended to all Departments, that we will have the benefit of knowing what is being done in the name of the House, this country and Europe, that such actions will be open to the widest possible scrutiny, and that accountability will be enhanced. Perhaps that will also underline the fact that Ministers are accountable to the House and that there is a proper role for hon. Members in scrutinising what Ministers do in our name.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to two new clauses which seem to accord with the Government's position and that we will not have to press them to a vote because he will satisfy the Committee that proposals are in train to enable that proper scrutiny to take place.

Mr. Doug Henderson: It is nice to see the season ticket holders here, or some of them—they have paid their money, anyway.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: There are more people on our terraces than there are in the official Opposition's grandstand.

Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that the private boxes are empty.
I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said about new clause 18, but it is not practical. As hon. Members will know, those matters were reviewed recently and there have been substantial improvements. We cannot accept a reduction to one working day. The present commitment is two working days, which allows a useful practical margin, reflecting the fact that we receive about 300 documents a week and it can be unclear which are subject to scrutiny. Without seriously diminishing Parliament's capacity to scrutinise proposals, shortening the period would be unworkable and disproportionate.
The Government cannot agree to the proposal for a six-week period. The present commitment is stronger, and we do not agree proposals until they have cleared scrutiny, however long that takes. Emergency procedures are sometimes invoked. That is crucial in foreign policy: sometimes an initiative has to be taken—as with Algeria—when a matter is pressing. When the emergency procedures are invoked, that fact is relayed to the relevant Committees.
I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and his colleagues will accept that there is an intention to improve procedure. The new procedure is only weeks old, and I hope that it will be recognised that we need a little more time to see whether it works properly: one day would not be too practical.
New clause 23 is about providing to Parliament a synopsis of Council of Ministers' meetings. As I understand it, there are different practices for different Departments. Many of those practices were inherited from the previous Government, and Ministers are examining them all to determine whether change is needed. I believe that there is a need for a review. I am fairly satisfied with the procedures adopted in relation to the Councils of Ministers on which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I sit, but I am happy to consider suggestions for improvements.
I want to review what is happening in other Departments, to see whether there are strengths in different practices that can be extended elsewhere. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will accept that we intend to provide information and not to be secretive, and that he will withdraw the motion and await the review, which I will publish as soon as I can.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Can the Minister give us a time scale for the conduct of the review and the announcement of its results? That might be persuasive in determining whether we should ask the Committee to vote on the motion.

Mr. Henderson: I should like to be able to help the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I have found—as he would find if he were in government—that the co-ordination of all the Departments involved is always a little more tricky than one would hope, and timetables are not always honoured. I assure him that I will use my best endeavours to ensure that the information is received quickly and the practices are reviewed as speedily as possible, so that best practice can be extended across all Departments.

Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, some of which has been extremely helpful. I hope that he will take seriously the point that there is a need


for uniformity of practice across the Government and that as much information should be given to the House, and on as many occasions, as possible.
If I have one piece of advice for the Minister, it is not to inherit practices from the previous Government. We look to the new Government to produce better, new practices.

Mr. Henderson: I want to make it clear that I was referring to administrative practices that have been established in the Departments for a long time. Not all the previous Government's administrative practices should be rejected; some are of long standing and have served the country well. We are conducting a review. The political aim is to ensure that information on the discussions of Councils of Ministers and the other appropriate bodies is made available to the House.

Mr. Heath: There are some administrative practices that it is better to reform, just as it would be better not to pursue certain policy directions for much longer. In the light of the Minister's assurances, on the assumption that there will be other opportunities to test the efficacy of the new procedures that he intends to put in place, and on the understanding that the Bill is not the only place in which we can ensure that new practices come into force in the United Kingdom, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 24

POWERS OF EUROPOL: REPORT

'This Act shall not come into force in the United Kingdom until a report tabled by a Minister of the Crown setting out in detail the new powers of Europol and the legal status of its officers in the United Kingdom has been debated and approved by each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Streeter: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 43—Police operations in co-operation with Europol—
'.—The relevant police authorities in the United Kingdom and their officers shall have full criminal and civil legal liability for any police operations affecting United Kingdom citizens they undertake in co-operation with Europol, notwithstanding any immunities granted to Europol staff.'.

Mr. Streeter: We tabled the new clause specifically to probe the Government on their intentions for the new powers concerning Europol. It is fair to say that we are supportive of the general principles behind this part of the treaty. Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) had a significant hand in the genesis of the measures some years ago. Conservative Members would of course support any reasonable measure that is intended to bear down on international and organised crime.
The new clause would require parliamentary approval of a report because, although we support its general principle, this part of the treaty, as I am sure that the Minister would be the first to accept, introduces or

develops a significant concept whereby we effectively give legal immunity to a whole new class of people from overseas who are operating here. He will also be the first to recognise that there is public concern about the precise legal ramifications.
We had an interesting debate in the Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 4 December, and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) sent me an extremely helpful letter on 18 December setting out some details, but I should like to probe the Minister a little more about some of the important legal implications.
We need a clearer idea about the activities that Europol officers will be involved in. Is it intended that legal immunity should cover all those activities, and in what circumstances will it be likely to be waived? What is it intended that a British individual should do if he or she has a complaint about the activities of a Europol officer?
My letter from the Minister's colleague said:
Article 38 of the Convention provides that if damage is caused to an individual as a result of incorrect data processing by Europol (for example, if false information provided by Europol led to a British police force detaining a person in London), the remedy lies through action against the Member State in which the damage occurred, in the national courts.
If I were a British citizen whose reputation had been damaged or who had been arrested or falsely imprisoned as a result of someone making a major blunder and giving the police the wrong information, I would be very aggrieved to be told that my remedy was to sue France. That prospect does not fill me with great encouragement. I would also ask myself whether legal aid would be available for such an action.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Certainly not.

Mr. Streeter: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and it would not be available under the present Government.
I hope that the Minister can clarify the matter. I have not had a satisfactory response to my question about legal redress for citizens who are aggrieved. We need some clarity about the scope of Europol officers' operations. They may not have the power of arrest, but are they allowed, for example, to accompany British police officers in the making of an arrest? In such a situation, one can foresee difficult circumstances arising.
I hope that the Minister will regard the new clause in the spirit in which it was tabled. There are serious legal implications. I am not entirely satisfied that the greatest clarity has yet been forthcoming from the Government. I realise that we are dealing with a new concept, but the Minister will understand that it is important to place on the record in Hansard as much detail as possible about the legal scope available to Europol officers, the ways in which our citizens can be protected and the redress that they will have if things go wrong. I look forward to the Minister's response.

7 pm

Mr. David Heath: New clause 43 stands in my name. This is the third opportunity that we have had to discuss this matter, and I have been increasingly dissatisfied with the responses that I have received. A vital matter of


principle is at stake in the extraordinary immunity that will be provided for Europol officers working in the United Kingdom. I am surprised by the insouciance of Labour and Conservative Members, because those immunities will put British citizens at a substantial potential disadvantage. No serious questions have been raised about that by anyone other than myself and my hon. Friends.
The Liberal Democrats have made it clear that we support entirely the additional co-operation that the proposals on Europol represent. We believe that there is a great role for police co-operation between the countries of Europe, and that Europol provides an avenue to achieve that. However, the order that was agreed shortly before Christmas will provide Europol officers with immunity from prosecution, except for traffic offences, in a way that is not, and never would be, available to British police officers in the execution of their duties in this country.
The argument adduced in favour of the order was simply that such immunity is provided as a matter of course to other European organisations that involve more than one country. For obvious reasons, such immunity is provided to organisations that hold Governments to account, but the powers available to police officers relate directly to the civil liberties of individuals or groups of individuals. That is clearly different from the position of officers of, for instance, the OSPAR commission, which we also discussed in the Ninth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
The British public in this country will have no adequate safeguard or redress if they feel that they have been put at a legal disadvantage by the actions of Europol officers. The only safeguard is that the immunity can be waived by the director of Europol. An analogous position would be a police officer having immunity in this country unless his chief constable said that he could be prosecuted. For what reasons can the waiver be granted? It cannot be granted in the interests of justice or the freedom of the individual, but it can be granted in the interests of the operations of the very organisation that the director leads.
The order is a serious erosion of the liberties of the individual. I was surprised, when we raised the matter in the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, that the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) could not support our position. Indeed, when the order came before the House, it was instructive that only some 30 Conservative Members voted against it, and they were not joined by their Front-Bench colleagues.
The key question that the Minister must answer is why the powers will be given to Europol officers when they would not be given to British police officers. Why did the Foreign Secretary say, in response to a question from me in the Foreign Affairs Committee on 4 November:
I would certainly resist any immunity being granted to Europol beyond anything that might be available to the national police"?
The very next action of the Government was to do precisely that, and to provide a level of immunity that will not be available to a constable of the Avon and Somerset constabulary or any other force in this country. Why has the position changed?
I hope that the Minister will not employ the tactics used by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central, who resorted to bluster. He advised the Standing Committee on Delegated

Legislation that I was the friend of the international criminal for daring to suggest that a British citizen should have the power of redress against a police officer who was acting outside his powers and outside the law. I was told that we were supporting international crime by daring to suggest that the waiver might not be an adequate safeguard.
The Government are mistaken, and this debate is the last opportunity that we shall have to make important points about immunity for Europol officers. For that reason—I do not know whether the hon. Member for South-West Devon intends to press new clause 24 to a Division—I hope to divide the Committee on new clause 43. It is an important matter on which hon. Members should have an opportunity to express their views.

Sir Richard Body: The new clause concerns the powers of Europol. That phrase has no meaning whatever unless it means powers over the citizens of Europe and this country in particular. We are therefore in the realms of civil liberties. I am sure that the Minister recognises that fact and takes it seriously. I am also sure that he will agree that our police forces have procedures and methods that, while not always perfect, are on the whole superior to those on parts of the continent. It would be appalling if our people were to be subject to the loss of civil liberties of the kind experienced in parts of the continent. That is the fear which some of us have about the extension of the powers of Europol to this country.
We appreciate that when fraud is rampant in the European Union, to the tune of some £6 billion a year, Europol must do what it can to curb it. Although that is an important consideration, it is overridden by the importance of civil liberties. Labour Members seem to have a singular lack of interest in civil liberties, and I am sorry that nobody on the Labour Benches has sought to catch your eye, Mr. Lord, in this short debate, which is very important for civil liberties. New clause 24 was moved with great reasonableness, and I hope that the Minister of State will be equally reasonable and accept it.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: It has been a characteristic feature of the development of the United Kingdom's relationship with our European partners that various measures have been brought before the House of Commons for us to approve in the name of the British people on the basis that those measures included safeguards for the British people.
Over time, and despite the assurances that Ministers have given the House in good faith, we have found that the European Union has sought to arrogate to itself powers that go beyond the literal interpretation of the various agreements and treaties. I offer as an example the Single European Act 1985. It was understood by the Government of the day, and especially by Baroness Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, that the powers of qualified majority voting would extend only to certain areas of Community competence. Much of her resentment about what happened later arose from the fact that the Community sought to extend its competence beyond the areas to which the British Government thought that it had been confined.
I mention that as a small preamble, because we are debating Europol and the extent to which it will have powers to work in the United Kingdom. As a member of


the Home Affairs Select Committee, together with the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), I visited the European Parliament before Christmas. We had a meeting with the committee dealing with justice and home affairs, which was also attended by people from other continental parliaments. It became apparent that there are those on the continent who envisage the creation of a European police force.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) was right to press the Minister to make it clear to us and to the British people exactly what the British Government understand is being conferred by article K.2 in particular. What powers are to be conferred on Europol? Will he share with us details of how he would react if attempts were made to extend Europol's role beyond co-ordination into acting as a European police force?
I remind the Committee that we must look at the treaty because we are presented with only a short Bill. Needless to say, the treaty is not the No. 1 best seller in W. H. Smith, but it is important that we make sure that people understand what exactly it says. Paragraph 2 of article K.2 states:
The Council shall promote cooperation"—
note, "cooperation"—
through Europol and shall in particular, within a period of five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:
(a) enable Europol to facilitate and support the preparation, and to encourage the coordination and carrying out, of specific investigative actions by the competent authorities of the Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity".
No one would disagree that it is right and proper to co-operate with our continental partners in the pursuit of cross-border crime and to take all necessary steps, particularly on drugs. However, will the Minister say how he understands the meaning of the expression
including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity"?
Does it mean that continental policemen will be attached to units in the United Kingdom and police Birmingham or Aldershot with powers of arrest over our citizens? Labour Members shake their heads, but our people need to know about such matters. I am sick and tired of being told that we should have read the treaty at the time because it was clear that it meant this or that, as happened with the treaties of Rome and Maastricht.
It is incumbent on the Government to anticipate how the treaty might be interpreted in communautaire fashion so that people say, "Article K.2 clearly leads to the creation of a Europewide police force. Did you not understand that? Here it is: 'including operational action of joint teams'." It is important to be clear about what the Government think they are signing up to.
I hope that the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government envisage, and are telling our continental partners that they envisage, that Europol officers will act in an advisory and support role, and that continental policemen will not roam the UK arresting our citizens. If that is what he has in mind, it would help if he told us tonight, so that people understand exactly what the treaty is all about.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I had not intended to contribute to this part of the Committee's deliberations, but I have been provoked by the reasonable and well

crafted contributions of other hon. Members. I have in mind the fact that recently in Scotland a citizen recovered substantial damages from the chief constable of Strathclyde.
Several officers—seven, I think—were involved in an incident in which the individual concerned received serious injuries in the course of an arrest. The judge, Lord Marnoch, an experienced senior judge in the Court of Session, thought that the injuries went far beyond anything that was reasonable in arrest. He not only found that police officers had not told the truth, but that the pursuer, the Scottish equivalent of the plaintiff, was entitled to substantial damages.
If officers of a non-domestic police force operating under the aegis of Europol had been engaged in such an operation—it is not far-fetched, because the operation's objective was to obtain evidence for a charge relating to the supply of illegal drugs—they would not have been subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, while the domestic officers would have been. That raises important difficulties, not only of practice but of principle. It is those which the Committee is anxious to hear the Minister address.
Paragraph 1(a) of article K.2 refers to
competent authorities, including the police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services of the Member States in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences".
The words
specialised law enforcement services of the Member States
seem apt to embrace the activities of organisations in other member states equivalent to MI5 or MI6. Can the Minister confirm that immunity would extend to such organisations, and not only to police forces?

Mr. Swayne: I should like the Minister to consider paragraph 2(a) of article K.2, bearing in mind that the treaty requires that such joint operational activity should take place within five years. To what extent would a joint operation undertaken by Europol and British police forces be accountable to the House through the Secretary of State for the Home Department? If activities are undertaken by Europol officers under the aegis of Europol, there is a serious danger that responsibility to the House would be lost.

Mr. Doug Henderson: New clause 24 would make Ministers table a report before the Act came into force. That would delay the Act, which is unacceptable to the Government, but I hope that my comments will offer some reassurance to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about some of the issues that he raised.
The new clause moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) stipulates that British police forces would be liable for any operations conducted with Europol which affected British citizens. I do not discount the fact that British police forces would be subject to some liability, but those matters have not yet been determined. The terms of the new clause are prescriptive, and they are unacceptable to the Government.
Europol is covered by a convention according to which any change affecting its operations would have to be agreed by unanimity. At the moment, its operations are


limited to information-gathering services. If those were to be extended, as the treaty anticipates, the way in which that takes place would have to be prescribed.
In answer to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), the Government do not envisage the establishment of a European police force. We do not even have a British police force: we have a number of different ones. We would not want to see any change in that structural relationship. As the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South-West Devon, has made clear, however, we should like to see further co-operation on matters in which Europol could use its work, such as anti-drugs operations. The way in which that happens would have to be agreed in the future.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon also posed the hypothetical question about someone who felt that he or she had been damaged as a result of actions by Europol. I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the legal redress available to a citizen under data protection. It is covered by the Europol convention, not the Amsterdam treaty. I want to take legal advice before I offer the hon. Gentleman a reply, and I undertake to do so as quickly as possible. I am sure that he will appreciate that that matter is not a direct responsibility of the Foreign Office, but more a matter for the Home Office. I shall therefore consult colleagues at that Department before I reply to the hon. Gentleman.
The Amsterdam treaty essentially offers the prospect of an extension of Europol's operations within five years. When that happens, its privileges and immunities will have to be reviewed. At the time of that review, the Government will report to the House in the normal way, via the improved scrutiny arrangements that we have introduced, any conclusions reached. Were any legislation to be required, it would be brought forward by the Government in the normal way.
Until that happens, the convention requires Europol to prevent any abuse of privileges and immunities granted under the provisions of the protocol. It also requires Europol to waive immunity in cases where its use would impede the course of justice. In practice, Europol will be unable to hide behind any immunity.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether any services other than normal police services would be covered by Europol. Again, I cannot answer that question, because it is something that would have to considered in any review of an extension of Europol's activities. Consideration would then be given to how it would be appropriate for Europol to work with European police forces, and what type of structure would have to be introduced. At this stage, that has not been determined.

Mr. David Heath: I do not feel that the Minister is entirely the master of this brief. Any waiver of immunity would be issued according to a twofold duty. It would be waived, first, in cases where immunity would impede the course of justice; and, secondly, in ways that did not prejudice the interests of Europol. The interests of Europol therefore become the test against which such a decision is made, which is totally different from any other test in British legislation. Why are Europol officers being

treated differently from British police forces? That is in flat contradiction of the assurance that the Foreign Secretary gave the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that Europol officers have limited involvement in current operations. Their work is information gathering, and were that to be extended over a five-year period, as the treaty of Amsterdam anticipates, any such extension would be subject to a debate and agreement by unanimity under the Europol convention. That would allow the Houses of our Parliament to discuss those matters, but it would be wrong to anticipate now the nature of those discussions. An assurance has been given that the immunities and privileges afforded to Europol will be reviewed then.
It is obviously important as a matter of principle that British citizens, and citizens throughout Europe, are protected. When a wrong has been committed there should be effective legal redress for citizens throughout Europe. Such matters will have to be addressed when considering the extension of Europol's work, but I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that I cannot say anything else about that now.

Mr. A. J. Beith: In pursuit of the intelligence and information-gathering work that Europol is already engaged in, its officers might be present in the United Kingdom to assist in a major operation. If that operation misfired to such an extent that some citizens had reason to believe that they had been wrongly arrested, wrongly subject to adverse publicity or in some other way damaged, should immunity be waived so that proceedings could he taken against those Europol officers? The head of Europol would then have to decide whether it would be in its interests to allow that, bearing in mind the fact that, for intelligence-gathering reasons, he may not wish the extent to which the force had been involved to be disclosed.

Mr. Henderson: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises that such an example would be dealt with in the next five-year period, when immunities will be reviewed. I hope that he will accept that the principled belief of the Government is that British citizens, in common with citizens throughout Europe, must have the right of redress if a wrong is committed against them by a British police officer or some other law enforcement agency officer. That would be a key point of the review. I do not believe that there is any difference between us on that. Given that the extension of Europol's information-gathering services is not envisaged at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman's argument is somewhat theoretical.

Sir Richard Body: Surely it is generally understood that there will be moves in due course to amend the convention that regulates Europol, in order to extend its powers. Surely I am right to say that, when that revised convention is considered, the House will have no authority or power to ratify those changes, although they may have far-reaching effects.

Mr. Henderson: I thought that I had tried to answer that point. I accept that it is anticipated that there will be some developments along those lines, but any such


decisions will have to be agreed by unanimity in the first place. The normal scrutiny conducted by the House would be part of that process. As I have already made clear in previous exchanges on the treaty, in principle I support the extension of our scrutiny procedures to issues covered by the second and third pillars.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will make a more general statement on that subject, probably tomorrow. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman. If any decision is reached by unanimity which requires a change in British law, that will of course be dealt with through the normal processes of this House.

Mr. Howard: I had not intended to take part in the debate, any more than did the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), but I should be grateful if the Minister would express a view in confirmation or otherwise on my analysis of the situation, which significantly differs from that of the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
The provisions in K.2, or article 30 as it will be of the treaty on European Union, make it absolutely clear that the only activities that Europol officers will be able to undertake will be in a support capacity. All operational decisions and operational actions will be taken by law enforcement officers, conventionally the police. Therefore, would it not be the case that, if the set of circumstances identified by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) led to wrongful arrest, the police, who would be responsible for that wrongful arrest, would in the normal event be liable to the citizen and the citizen could obtain compensation from the police force in that way?
If that analysis is right—no doubt the Minister will want to take advice on the matter, but I am encouraged by the signs that I have seen—is it not the case that the new clause to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has spoken is completely unnecessary, because the liability contained in that new clause would follow in any event?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I confirm that my interpretation is the same as his in respect of the operation of police activities, and that Europol would be involved in a support capacity to police forces throughout Europe, whatever their internal structure.
The question about wrongful arrest is something that would have to be considered as part of a review process as the activities of Europol were established, even if they are established precisely in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have interpreted the provision to intend. There would need to be detailed examination of the way in which Europol officers related to other officers in domestic police forces and of the question of who would carry responsibility for any liability incurred.

Mr. Howard: There are two separate questions, and there is a danger of confusing them. It is a matter of considerable importance, and no doubt an appropriate question for review, whether the body that ultimately pays the compensation is the British police force or Europol. That is clearly significant, and something that would be

covered by the review. However, what is of interest to the citizen is that he gets compensation; it does not matter much to the citizen whether he gets it from a British police force or from Europol.
The concern that I suggest we ought to have about the treaty is whether the citizen will get the compensation to which he or she is entitled for wrongful arrest or for any other wrong done to him. The Minister, in the first part of his intervention, confirmed my analysis and my understanding that the citizen would have a right to compensation against the police force or other law enforcement agency in those circumstances. If that is right, it must follow that the new clause is unnecessary, however many questions may need to be considered in the review as to whether the ultimate compensation is paid by the British police force or by Europol.

Mr. David Heath: It is always an edifying sight when a former Secretary of State comes to the aid of a present Minister of State, but I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken.
If officers acting in a support role require no immunity, why is that immunity not given to officers acting on behalf of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, whose role in respect of provincial police forces is exactly analogous to the role that will be carried out by Europol? Is it not easy to foresee circumstances in which redress to an individual citizen is appropriate as a result of police officers belonging to a local constabulary acting in good faith and blamelessly in the execution of their duties on the basis of information or other material provided by Europol which was not beyond reproach or blameless?

Mr. Howard: No—the analogy with the National Criminal Intelligence Service illustrates the error and the absurdity of the hon. Gentleman's argument. It would be ludicrous to suppose that, in this country, circumstances would arise in which a citizen had been wrongfully arrested and brought an action for wrongful arrest against the police force responsible for the arrest, but the police force said "Not me, Guv. You shouldn't be suing us—you should be suing the National Criminal Intelligence Service." It is simply beyond contemplation that that situation could arise, so the analogy the hon. Gentleman draws is a fanciful one, and is not relevant to the Committee's considerations this evening.
There may well be questions in due course, which is why the Minister is right to point to the need for a review of whether the ultimate source of compensation to the citizen should be the police force or Europol. However, what is important in terms of consideration of the treaty is whether the citizen gets the compensation to which he is entitled. I believe that the citizen would get the compensation to which he was entitled, and that ought to be our concern when considering the treaty. That is why the new clause is unnecessary, and why Conservative Members will not support it if it is pressed to a vote.

Mr. Beith: The former Home Secretary prompts me to say that he did not fully review my earlier point, because he confined his remarks to circumstances in which wrongful arrest had occurred. Other things might take place, and I gave the example of a person suffering adverse publicity because of information leaked by an officer which turned out to be false, or which should not have been leaked in any case, whether true or false,


because inquiries were still in progress. That action might have been taken by an officer of Europol and not of the police force involved. One can imagine other cases, involving not a simple case of wrongful arrest, but some other form of culpability directed at Europol officers.
We raise these matters not because we expect Europol officers to behave in that way, but because there must be an ultimate safeguard. That safeguard has been stripped away by the breadth of immunity given to Europol—a scale of immunity not given to British police forces, or to other organisations which assist British police forces such as the Security Service, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, or the National Crime Squad, all of which operate in a role that is in some way similar.
We remain extremely concerned, and I hope that, even if we have not persuaded them to take immediate action, today's debate will send the Government hastening back to interdepartmental consultation on this issue. There is a serious gap and, from his demeanour and the concern he has shown, I believe that the Minister is aware of that gap.

Mr. Streeter: This has been a valuable debate. I thank the Minister for making it clear that the Government have no plans whatsoever to support any concept of a European police force. For reasons given, we cannot support the Liberal Democrats' new clause, but I must tell the Minister that I am not entirely satisfied by his response to the debate. When he writes to me, as he says he will, I hope that he will set out in some detail the answers to some of the questions that I have asked. It is not so much that we want to know what will happen in five years' time; we want to know the limits of the scope of activity in the next five years. We also want to know more about the legal immunity.
I should have thought that, on hearing some of the concerns around the House today, the Minister would ask the Leader of the House of Commons, his right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to organise a longer debate on the subject in Government time between now and Easter, so that we can discuss some of the details. It is important that our citizens should be reassured. We want more detail about how the process will work in practice. I am disappointed that the Minister should introduce the measure without having fully thought through its legal implications and ramifications, and seemingly without adequate briefing.
Given all the circumstances, it is not our intention to press the new clause to a Division tonight, but I hope that the Minister has listened carefully and will note that we are not entirely satisfied; we require more information and an opportunity to debate the subject fully in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 43

POLICE OPERATIONS IN CO-OPERATION WITH EUROPOL

'.—The relevant police authorities in the United Kingdom and their officers shall have full criminal and civil legal liability for any police operations affecting United Kingdom citizens they undertake in co—operation with Europol, notwithstanding any immunities granted to Europol staff:.—[Mr. Menzies Campbell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 38, Noes 324.

Division No. 132]
[7.40 pm


AYES


Baker, Norman
Harvey, Nick


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brake, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Brand, Dr Peter
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burnett, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Burstow, Paul
Oaten, Mark


Cable, Dr Vincent
Rendel, David


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)



Sanders, Adrian


Chidgey, David
Stunell, Andrew


Cotter, Brian
Taylor Matthew (Truro)


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Tonge, Dr Jenny



Tyler, Paul


Dafis, Cynog
Willis, Phil


Davey, Edward (Kingston)



Fearn, Ronnie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Foster, Don (Bath)
Mr. Steve Webb and


Harris, Dr Evan
Mr. Richard Allan.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chaytor, David


Ainger, Nick
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Alexander, Douglas
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clwyd, Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Colman, Tony


Beard, Nigel
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corston, Ms Jean


Best, Harold
Cousins, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Crausby, David


Borrow, David
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Browne, Desmond
Davidson, Ian


Buck, Ms Karen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Burden, Richard
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Burgon, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dean, Mrs Janet


Byers, Stephen
Dismore, Andrew


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dobbin, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Doran, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Dowd, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Drew, David


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cawsey, Ian
Edwards, Huw


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Ellman, Mrs Louise






Ennis, Jeff
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Etherington, Bill
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Khabra, Piara S


Flint, Caroline
Kidney, David


Flynn, Paul
Kilfoyle, Peter


Follett, Barbara
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foulkes, George
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fyfe, Maria
Laxton, Bob


Galloway, George
Leslie, Christopher


Gapes, Mike
Levitt, Tom


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Linton, Martin


Gerrard, Neil
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lock, David


Godman, Norman A
Love, Andrew


Godsiff, Roger
McAllion, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
McAvoy, Thomas


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Grant, Bernie
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gunnell, John
McIsaac, Shona


Hain, Peter
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNulty, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
MacShane, Denis


Hanson, David
Mactaggart, Fiona


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McWalter, Tony


Healey, John
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hill, Keith
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Home Robertson, John
Meale, Alan


Hoon, Geoffrey
Merron, Gillian


Hope, Phil
Michael, Alun


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Milburn, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Miller, Andrew


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morley, Elliot


Hurst, Alan
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Mudie, George


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jamieson, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Olner, Bill


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Organ, Mrs Diana



Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pike, Peter L





Plaskitt, James
Spellar, John


Pollard, Kerry
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pond, Chris
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pope, Greg
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pound, Stephen
Stinchcombe, Paul


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham


Primarolo, Dawn
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prosser, Gwyn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rammell, Bill



Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Todd, Mark


Rogers, Allan
Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Vaz, Keith


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Ward Ms Claire



Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
White, Brian


Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm


Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sawford, Phil



Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shaw, Jonathan
Wilson, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Winnick, David


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Wise, Audrey


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wood, Mike


Skinner, Dennis
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Smith, John (Glamorgan)



Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tellers for the Noes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Clive Betts and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 44

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION BETWEEN COURT OF AUDITORS AND OTHER BODIES

'.—In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 43c (cmd. 3780, page 38) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Secretary of State shall establish a standing mechanism for the exchange of information between the Court of Auditors and, respectively, the National Audit Office and the Northern Ireland Audit Office, and, in respect of funds administered by local government, the Audit Commission and the Commission for Local Authority Accounts in Scotland.'.—[Mr. David Heath.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Heath: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is an important new clause. I hope that I shall speak briefly enough to enable the Minister to accept it without question in the short time available to us before 8 o'clock.
Very simply, there is a pressing need to beef up co-operation between the European and the national auditors. As we know, 80 per cent. of European


expenditure is administered by national Governments; that is where the bulk of fraud, maladministration and other irregularities are found.
The Court of Auditors is doing a very good job. It seems to me that it is showing up some of the inadequacies in the present system. In its most recent report, for the third year running the Court of Auditors was unable to give formal approval to the spending accounts.
Fraud costs the European Union about £3 billion a year—an amount equal to about 5.4 per cent. of its entire budget. Between 1988 and 1996, VAT fraud alone cost the EU about £750 million.
I believe that the audit systems that are in place in this country are extremely good. I used to be a member of the Audit Commission and I obviously had some interest in the way in which that body worked. If we can link the very good audit systems that we have in this country with that available to the Court of Auditors through Europe, we shall provide a very good example of a seamless system of audit, which will substantially reduce fraud. We can then be much more open in our selling of that process to other member states, in the hope that they will accede to similar arrangements and that we can substantially reduce the fraud bill and redirect the money saved back to member states or into European programmes that need support. Obviously, a standing link would be the most efficacious way to achieve that.
If the Government are serious about cracking down on fraud—as I believe they are—they should take the opportunity to accede to the suggestion in the new clause and to provide that standing link, as an example to other member states. I ask the Minister to support the new clause.

Mr. Cash: During the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, I tabled an amendment regarding fraud and the issue of the relationship between the Court of Auditors and national Parliaments. Although, Sir Alan, I am sure that, you would not want me to impugn your integrity and impartiality during this debate, I am sure that as a former co-member of the Select Committee on European Legislation, you will recall that I have pursued this question diligently for many years.
I intend not to make a long speech but simply to respond to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), so I merely say that I do not believe for a minute that there is the slightest chance of the other member states agreeing to scrutiny arrangements of the type that are available to us in the United Kingdom in the form of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General.
It is unnecessary for me to go into detail, as I have spoken on the subject many times, but I am deeply apprehensive about the proposals in the treaty of Amsterdam, and I do not believe for a minute that the improvements that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said he hoped for will take place. If there is no improvement, I am afraid that our taxpayers will be taken to the cleaners over and over again. I need not enlarge on

that point, although I could easily make a speech of one and a half hours about it. In this case, one and a half minutes will suffice.

Mr. Doug Henderson: I cannot accept the new clause. I fear that it could lead to an increase in bureaucracy, which is not what the Government would wish. As I understand it, the National Audit Office is content with the present arrangements for co-operation with the Court of Auditors. It is looking into what improvements can be made to the current system; it has the Government's support in doing so. It would be much better to await its review and to see how improvements can be put in place before establishing any unnecessary additional bureaucracy.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment, pursuant to the Order [17 December].

Order for Third Reading read.

8 pm

Mr. Doug Henderson: May I first convey to the House the apologies of the Foreign Secretary—I believe that he has already conveyed them to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—who is on important Government business in China.
We are bringing to a close this stage of the parliamentary scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty. We have spent many hours in detailed examination of the treaty, and I believe that the scrutiny by the House has been conducted with the thoroughness which this important treaty merits. We have discussed amendments relating to virtually every clause of the treaty, but, thanks to the Government's timetable motion, we have also been able to make reasonable progress.
I cannot agree with Conservative Members' claims that scrutiny has been inadequate. I do not regard a total of about 30 hours' debate in the House as a cursory examination; and compared with the scrutiny given in other EU Parliaments to similar measures, we have done very well.
By passing the Bill, we will be able to bring into UK law the parts of the treaty that give rise to Community rights and obligations, and thus to proceed to formal ratification of the treaty. I hope that progress on the Bill will continue to be as good, and that the United Kingdom will be one of the first member states to ratify the treaty of Amsterdam. With our presidency of the Union, that will send an important signal to our European partners that the new British Government are committed to full engagement in Europe. That contrasts with the Maastricht treaty which, in the hands of the previous Government, we were virtually the last to ratify. The ratification process is well on track in other member states, and we are optimistic that the treaty will come into force early in 1999.
Much has changed since the treaty was agreed in June. In those heady days of summer, the Opposition were strident in their advocacy of an immediate referendum on Amsterdam in the United Kingdom. I am pleased to note that they have now fallen in line with the Government's view that that would not be appropriate. I welcome Conservative Front Benchers' conversion, even if some Tory Back Benchers take a different view.
I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides for the high quality of the debates on the Bill. The Daily Telegraph, no less, reported on 17 December that these debates had seen some of the most impressive Opposition speeches since the general election. I should add that there have not exactly been many runners in the contest, but I am happy to give credit where it is due. There have been many interventions by Labour Members, too, of great sincerity and quality.
The minority in the House who seem to remain opposed to the Bill have struggled to find any rational reasons for opposing it. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe has shared with us his nightmare vision of the sanctions clause—our 14 partners will gang up on the UK for no good reason and impose sanctions on us. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), however, has pointed out that that is so far from reality as to be laughable. Anything that makes Conservative Members laugh is to be commended—they have not had much to laugh about of late.
The shadow Foreign Secretary has repeatedly castigated the Government for signing up to more qualified majority voting. That is somewhat hypocritical, given that the former Government signed up to QMV for a whole raft of single market legislation under the Single European Act; and for 30 other areas under Maastricht. The Tories disregard the fact that it is in our national interest to sign up to majority voting in a number of areas.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has also tried to suggest that allowing British people the same benefits as are enjoyed by their European counterparts, who have incorporated the social chapter already, will bring the British economy crashing to its knees. The truth, as the vast majority of hon. Members recognise, is that this is a good treaty for this country.
The new treaty marks a new direction for the Union as it moves towards the new priorities of enlargement and working better for its citizens. The EU faces a host of new challenges: the need to compete in global markets; to adjust to profound social changes; to respond to external political developments; and to tackle new threats to the EU's security at home and abroad. We are determined that the Union should be in good shape to meet those challenges. As president, we are actively promoting policies to meet those challenges head on.
Agreeing the new treaty of Amsterdam was the first step in this process. We achieved what is widely regarded across Europe as a very British treaty which reflects the British Government's priorities on: employment, fighting crime, protecting the environment, subsidiarity and an increased role for national Parliaments, measures to counter fraud in the Community, greater openness in the Union, fighting discrimination, and animal welfare. To that list could be added foreign policy co-ordination, a recognition of NATO's key role in defence, and retaining the veto for key common foreign and security policy decisions. On all those issues, we went to Amsterdam looking for results—and we got them. We showed at Amsterdam that it is possible to have a constructive relationship with Europe to our mutual benefit.
We will accept no lessons from Conservatives on how to negotiate in Europe or anywhere else. They fail to understand that the EU is not a zero sum game. So we shall continue to play a full and active part in Europe,

looking for consensus, not conflict, as the best way of securing the national interest. This treaty shows that that can be done, and the benefits of doing it. I look forward to telling the House about more such success in the future, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Howard: The fact that we are now less than two hours away from the end of debating this Bill is an outrage. It gives effect to a major treaty which provides for the transfer of substantial powers from the Parliament of the United Kingdom to sources of power and authority outside this kingdom. It provides for the surrender of our veto, for an extension of qualified majority voting and for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament. It subjects us to the social chapter. It neuters any substance in the concept of subsidiarity. It will increase the extent to which laws can be made binding on the people of this country without their consent or that of their Parliament or Government.
Yet, as a result of a brutal exercise of the guillotine after only 12 hours' debate in Committee, completely free of filibuster, the whole of the Bill's scrutiny in Committee of the whole House has been confined to just over 20 hours.
Reporting progress a few moments ago, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) used the time-honoured phrase when he said:
the Committee has gone through the European Communities (Amendment) Bill".
Rarely has that been a more hollow claim. The Minister said that scrutiny had been conducted with thoroughness. It is true that we have done what we could in the very limited time available, but the fact that the Government have imposed such a draconian guillotine on the Bill is a disgrace. I hope that, when another place comes to consider it in detail, that will be borne in mind. The best that the Minister could say when he was defending the guillotine was that the scrutiny that the House had given to the Bill compared favourably with that in other Parliaments of the European Union, as though that was supposed to be some consolation to us.
It would be foolish to consider the Bill in isolation. While power is being transferred from Britain to Brussels and Strasbourg, it is also being transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, to some as yet undesignated seat in Wales, and in due course, no doubt, to the English regions.
It is all of a piece. Those who want to see a Europe of the regions, in which the important decisions in Europe are increasingly taken in Brussels and in the regions of Europe, with less and less being decided in national Parliaments, would applaud that agenda with enthusiasm.
Those of us with reservations about that agenda are not hostile to Europe or to the European Union. We are not anti-Europe or anti-European; on the contrary, we want to see a European Union that works, with Britain as a prominent part of it, but we believe that further and deeper integration, far from contributing to that objective, will have the opposite effect.
We believe that the strains and stresses that will result will undermine and fragment the cohesion of the European Union. We believe that they will increase the resentment felt in this country as more and more decisions are taken without the consent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom
That is why the Bill and the treaty to which it gives effect should have been given proper scrutiny. That is why enough time should have been made available for that scrutiny to take place. That is why the Government's approach to these important matters is such a scandal.
Last Thursday, to add insult to injury, we had the bizarre spectacle of the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), who is not in his place, taking up time with the apparent intention of protecting the Minister from the need to reply to the debate, and then blaming Opposition Members. It was the hon. Member for Ilford, South and the Minister who voted for the guillotine. They were responsible for the fact that the amount of time available was so limited, and they had the gall to point the finger at us.
During the debates that we have had, we have done the best we could to give the Bill due scrutiny, to identify its many shortcomings and to ask the questions that need answering. We have done that in a responsible way, as was shown by our attitude to the last amendment that we pressed to a Division. We do not make unnecessary points. We do not vote for unnecessary amendments. There is enough in the Bill to warrant justified opprobrium to make that unnecessary.
The Minister, to give him credit where credit is due, has made a brave effort, especially in the earlier part of our scrutiny, to answer our questions. It is not his fault that he could not, for the most part, give satisfactory answers or proper assurances. The fault is in the treaty and the Bill, and with the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister for signing up to the treaty.
The Government claim to want to create jobs. By signing up, in the treaty, to the social chapter, they will destroy jobs. The Government claim to want to lead Europe. By signing up, in the treaty, to more qualified majority voting, they will ensure that they can be ignored on major issues. The Government claim to want to improve democracy. By signing up, in the treaty, to measures that will weaken Westminster, they will undermine the basis of our democracy. In almost every area, the measures to which the Government have signed up in the treaty will achieve the opposite of what they intend.
The treaty is at least as bad for what it omits as for what it contains. It will bring about no progress on enlargement or on quota-hopping, and will do nothing to justify the Prime Minister's bold words before the election. The Prime Minister went to Amsterdam seeking to decentralise power within the Union. He failed. He went to Amsterdam promising to prepare the way for enlargement. He failed. He went to Amsterdam having given an explicit pledge to our fishing communities that he would secure a better deal for them. He failed.
For the reasons that we have given in our debates, and for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) in his excellent article in The Times this morning, the treaty is a bad treaty—bad for Britain and bad for Europe. That is why Conservative Members will have no hesitation in voting against the Bill tonight.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: At this stage in the Bill's progress, it is unlikely that any minds will be moved to take up a different viewpoint from that with which they

began. Much of what the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), just said echoes what he said on Second Reading and, if my memory serves me correctly, what he said when we debated the guillotine motion.
This is not so much a game of two halves as a debate of two irreconcilable viewpoints. It has been clear from the beginning that the Conservative party would vote against the Bill at this stage, as at every other stage. Some who have spoken would have voted against any Bill and any treaty that had come out of the IGC. If one analyses the speeches made over the days on which we have considered the Bill, one sees clearly that a large part of the present parliamentary representation of the Conservative party is opposed not just to further European integration, but to Europe itself.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is in his place, indefatigable as ever, honourable, consistent in his opposition, has made no secret, even during a long period of Conservative government, of his opposition to any further integration in Europe.
I cannot help thinking that we and the country would have a much more productive debate if all those who genuinely want Britain to come out of the European Union would declare themselves, and if those who want to row back would tell us to what point they wish to row back—before Maastricht, before the single European Act? Their position is clothed in ambiguity.
Surely those who want to come out of Europe and those who want to row back have an obligation to offer a coherent alternative to the course on which successive British Governments have set themselves, and of which the Bill, following the Amsterdam treaty, is a logical and, in my view, not particularly significant extension.

Mr. Howard: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman believe that those who are in favour of a federal Europe owe it to the House to come clean and tell us that? Do not those who are in favour of the Bill and the treaty have a duty to tell the House what they see as the ultimate destination of the European Union that they want?

Mr. Campbell: I have no complaint about the notion of a federal Europe. Federalism, as properly defined, is a system of government that devolves power, rather than aggregating it. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Members find it difficult to control themselves or to conceal their true feelings. I offer them the Oxford English dictionary if they are looking for a definition. I have no quarrel with the notion that the economic integration of Europe was bound to be followed by increased political integration.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I have argued that case in the House, and so has my party, for a long time. I have no quarrel with the notion that we should have something approaching a federal United Kingdom. That is why I have argued for home rule throughout my adult political life.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Campbell: Federalism allows one to define clearly and unambiguously the powers of the respective


Parliaments. In my view it is a proper solution to the government of the United Kingdom, and in due course, if the peoples of Europe want to bring it about, it may be a proper solution to the way in which Europe should organise itself. However, a model of federalism is a long, long way in the distance from what we are considering in the treaty.

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Campbell: Take your pick.

Mr. Cash: In his enthusiasm for home rule, does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there will come a moment when people will be as anxious to ensure that we retain our legislative independence in this place as Parnell was determined to obtain it for the Irish people in his time? The home rule argument is totally at variance with the democracy of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Campbell: I certainly do not accept that. Let us consider the history of the last part of the 19th century. If the arguments then in relation to Irish home rule had succeeded, perhaps we would not be experiencing some of the current difficulties in our relationship with Ireland. It is worth pointing out that another effort was made just before the outbreak of the first world war—if my memory serves me correctly, legislation seeking to bring home rule to both Ireland and Scotland received a Second Reading—but it failed because of the assassination at Sarajevo.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was leader of the Conservative party, he came to Perth and issued what was called the declaration of Perth. He argued the case for a Scottish Parliament extremely persuasively—to the extent that the late Sir Alec Douglas-Home, later Lord Home, told the people of Scotland in 1979 that they should vote against the proposals of the then Labour Government because the Conservatives had promised them something better: an assembly with tax-raising powers. I think that I have given enough history lessons to some of those less well-informed Opposition Members.

Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so generously. To Opposition Members, he appears to resemble nothing so much as a shifting goal post. Let us try to pin him down. Some years ago, Jacques Delors expressed the hope and the expectation that, ultimately, 80 per cent. of laws affecting the citizens of the United Kingdom would originate in Brussels. Is that acceptable to the hon. and learned Gentleman? If it is not, will he tell the House at what point he would draw a line in the sand and say, "Thus far and no further"?

Mr. Campbell: I do not think that it is possible to conduct such matters in that way. I find it rather amusing to hear references to Mr. Delors and federalism. Hon. Members may remember that Mr. Dehaene offered to play an important role in Europe but was turned down by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Conservative Prime Minister, on the grounds that he was thought to be too federal. Mr. Santer was chosen instead. The right hon. Gentleman described him as "the

right man in the right place at the right time". However, in his first important contribution to the debate on Europe, Mr. Santer said that he thought that federalism was the direction that Europe should take. I do not believe that Conservative Members are in a position to preach to the rest of us about such matters.

Mr. Blunt: rose—

Mr. Campbell: No. I think that I have given way rather generously, and now I must continue. I am sure that some of those Opposition Members who wish to intervene will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Tory consensus that was a rallying point on Second Reading—opposition to the social chapter—will no doubt have survived to Third Reading. However, it is a pretty fragile basis upon which to build a lasting consensus in the Conservative party on the issue of Europe. That consensus was fractured even in the course of this Bill by the 12 angry men who wrote to The Independent in support of a single currency. If today's reports are to be believed, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), is willing to engage in cross-party efforts to inform the public of the benefits of Europe, and particularly the advantages of a single currency.
Those people have been dismissed as yesterday's men—particularly the former Deputy Prime Minister. That is rather cavalier treatment. I wonder how many of those who are now anxious to join that chorus were eager to welcome him to the diet of liebfraumilch and overdone chicken which I believe is the fare at the annual dinner of most Conservative associations.
The social chapter is no threat to the economy of the United Kingdom or to inward investment. Inward investment is more at risk from the present economic difficulties of investing countries, such as those in Asia, than from any risk associated with adopting the social chapter. The United Kingdom needs a work force that is educated, motivated and confident—not one that feels exploited. By way of illustration, we are talking about what is essentially best practice: some 57 blue chip United Kingdom companies, such as BP and British Airways, already have works councils.
The treaty establishes several principles. Environmental protection and sustainable development must be fundamental priorities and qualified majority voting can be extended to areas such as fraud. Two months ago, the European Union Court of Auditors reported that, in the previous year, £3 billion had been wasted through fraud. That figure is about £9 billion for the past year. If ever there were an argument for introducing qualified majority voting to deal with a problem, it lies in those bald figures.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose

Mr. Campbell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, but I must make progress. The treaty opens the way to enlargement—although not as much as it should as there is no proper consideration of the institutional changes that will be required when enlargement takes place. There will have to be some other consideration of that in another intergovernmental conference or another forum of that kind.
The treaty states the primacy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. However, those who remember the detail of the Maastricht treaty will recall that the proposition for a common foreign and security policy was without prejudice to any existing treaty obligations of EU members. The treaty allows closer co-operation through the Western European Union regarding humanitarian and peacekeeping tasks.
Viewed objectively in relation to common foreign and security policy, the treaty amounts to no more than a consolidation. However, I believe that the policy will continue to develop. There is a current practical example of that. A troika has gone to Algeria, under the leadership of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), to put forward proposals on behalf of the European Union in the interests of the people of the European Union. I believe that that kind of arrangement is likely to be repeated on many future occasions.
On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary described the Bill as a triumph, and his shadow, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), described it as a disaster. As I said then, they cannot both be right, but they can both be wrong. We have reached the concluding stages of the Bill. I believe that it marks modest progress in Europe and modest progress in the interests of the United Kingdom. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I feel rather like a late guest at a funeral who sweeps in at the conclusion of the sermon and announces that the dear departed was a bit of a creep. In this case, the dear departed is the Bill, and that is a pretty accurate description of it and the Amsterdam treaty. We must find another way of implementing such measures in this place. It is ludicrous to push legislation through on a Government majority—that will always happen because the Government have negotiated the legislation—supported by the Liberal Democrats, who will support anything from Europe because they are Euro-daft. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who has just spoken, has demonstrated that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the hon. Gentleman said, he has come late to the wedding feast. [HON. MEMBERS: "Funeral."] He has come late to the celebration. If he had been in the Chamber only an hour ago, he would have heard us take issue with the Government about part of the treaty. The hon. Gentleman is, by and large, a sensible individual who adopts a sensible view. I do not always agree with him, but it does not do him or his argument much good to indulge in that sort of sweeping generalisation.

Mr. Mitchell: I agree that the Liberals always try to get the best of both worlds. I agree also with some of the sensible amendments that were tabled on openness and the production of reports. However, it remains the case that the Liberals will accept anything that comes from Europe because they accept the ultimate destination of a

federal Europe; the rest of the House does not. The Liberals are alone in that respect. They are out of touch with public opinion, but people do not notice because the Liberals are not particularly important politically.
The stand of the Liberals is characterised by my recollection of the then Grimsby by-election, during which I was fighting on a platform of taking British control of British fishing waters. The Liberals were passionate enthusiasts for and supporters of Europe. During the very period of the by-election, a Liberal Member introduced a private Member's Bill that would have had the effect of the British taking control of a 50-mile limit. In other words, the Liberals believe in a common fisheries policy that precludes such a limit, but they are prepared to act in that fashion for opportunist, populist reasons. They whip up populist complaints while accepting the principle that has given rise to them.
I was saying, in effect, that we are engaged in a bad way of doing business. We are pushing through legislation when we cannot even consider the treaty to which it relates because we are considering the implementation of the treaty in British law and not the provisions of the treaty. We have had no influence on it. It would be far better—this would give us coherent options—if we could discuss what our proposals are and come to decisions for which Ministers could bargain, rather than have posthumously to accept whatever is determined.
I must make a shocking confession: I voted for the Bill's Second Reading. Since then I have received much friendly mail from fellow Euro-sceptics throughout the country inviting me to go forth and multiply, to drop dead or to do other things that I am not especially inclined to do. Tonight, however, I intend to kneel down for my principles by abstaining. That is real courage on my part, because I am a nervous rebel. I have never seen myself as a natural born rebel.
I believe that I am justified in abstaining on Third Reading. The Bill has not improved, despite the amendments that were tabled—some of which I supported—on openness, reports and clarity. I still adhere to my view that the Bill relates to a pretty futile treaty. In effect, it is the first treaty for the Labour party.
The original negotiations took place under the Conservatives. The negotiations on a single market took place through the Conservatives. The Maastricht treaty was carried through by the Conservatives. Here we are, new Labour, with a new and sensible approach. Surely it is sensible to say, "Let us work with Europe to see what we can get by working together rather than taking a confrontational approach." That is eminently sensible, and I went along with it.
The Labour party is not naturally a Euro-enthusiastic organisation, because we represent the people, and the people are pretty cool and sceptical about the whole business. We are concerned primarily with jobs and economic growth, which makes us worry about the economic consequences of Europe. At the same time, it is right to introduce a new spirit, to end isolation and to end the us-and-them situation in Europe, just as we are dedicated to ending the us-and-them approach in British society.
We testified as a new Government to a desire for change and co-operation by accepting the social chapter. It is not something with the horrendous consequences that the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned


Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), sought to put before the House. In fact, it is a piece of sublime mysticism and nonsense that in practice means very little. However, we testified to it by saying that in principle we were in favour of monetary union.
I accept that big concessions have been made towards Europe, but what have we secured in return? The answer is the usual European approach of never giving a sucker an even break. We have got nothing. We were bamboozled by a mess of Amsterdam potage. Some say that we are engaged in—I think that it is probably the right interpretation—tying up the loose ends of Maastricht, but others see it as supercharging Maastricht. In so far as it does that, the process is covert and threatening.
I am concerned by some of the Bill's consequences. For example, I am concerned to see Europe becoming an entity in respect of foreign, security and defence policy. I am concerned also that the Western European Union accepted that. Indeed, its acceptance is embodied in the treaty. This is potentially disastrous. It has been specifically accepted that the WEU will develop its role as the European political and military body for crisis management.
There will be
further development of its own operational role.
There is reference to "crisis management mechanisms" and
Preliminary Conclusions on the Formulation of a Common European Defence Policy.
We read of the
definition of principles for the use of armed forces".
Here we have a defence entity emerging. There is the potential for enormous conflict between the role of NATO and that of the WEU along with the European Union. The seeds of confusion are planted in that tension.
I think that we are seeing the undermining of subsidiarity through the treaty. I think also that The Daily Telegraph was right to argue last week that, once accepted, the principle that I have outlined would make the EU legally a federation. Its jurisdiction would derive not from the authority of member states but would come directly from the European treaties as interpreted by the European Court. I think that that is right. We are accepting that as our principle and, therefore, we are accepting that form of federalism—something both major parties committed themselves in their manifestos to opposing. We committed ourselves to opposing the emergence of a European federation yet such a federation is implicit in the position that has been taken on subsidiarity.
The real worry is that we are not advancing democracy. The people's Europe is an attractive concept that is much talked about. If it could be a people's Europe I might reconsider my attitude, but at present, and I think for the future—I stand to be converted—the nation state is the only form of government in which we have been able to give people control over their own destinies and is a framework that enriches people of the particular nation. The nation state has done that successfully since the second world war.
It is no coincidence that Britain's growth slowed and that unemployment quadrupled after we joined the European Union. The nation state is the only way that we have found, yet it is undermined by the treaty because we

are building on a legalistic entity called Europe that is not government of the people for the people by the people but essentially government of the treaty by the treaty for the treaty—and for those who wrote the treaty and will interpret it.
The people do not figure in that legalistic morass. We have a constitution that, thanks to the reordering that is implicit in the treaty, is spread over 314 articles and more than 50 protocols. The original concept of Europe, when it was the common market, was to try to build a palace on a cowshed because it stemmed from the common agricultural policy. We are trying now to build a vision on a legal morass.
The process is self-defeating, because the people cannot identify with the tangled complex of interpretations and qualifications that Europe is emerging as. Europe is bogged down in argument, legalism and interpretation. This is happening at a time when the real battle over the economy is still to be fought in terms of economic and monetary union. We are faced with an abhorrent concept and it is not one the people can view with any enthusiasm. It is a self-defeating approach. I hope very much that it is, and I cannot support it.
What can I do? Well, I can be cowardly—new Labour, new rules on dissent. If we vote against Government policy en masse, we are more or less all right; vote against it alone—I do not see myself conspicuously supported in the Chamber—and it is rather like "Beyond the Fringe". At this stage in the conflict, do we need a futile gesture? Various Euro-enthusiastic friends have been encouraging me to make that futile gesture by saying, "You must stand up for your principles tonight, Austin." Instead, I shall abstain for them.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) deserves congratulations for being willing to abstain. I know that life is tough under new Labour, and I can assure him that, if he gets into trouble, I shall be glad to make a contribution to his welfare and that of his family.
I dissagreed with the hon. Gentleman only on the dangers of a federal Europe. I wish that people would stop talking about a federal Europe because when one considers the current state of the European constitution, a federal Europe may be infinitely better than what we have under the treaty. A federal Europe would be democratic; the European Union is not. A federal Europe would set out the lines of responsibility between the centre and the small regions or nation states; the present structure does not. I certainly do not support a federal Europe, but people should accept that what we now have is well beyond a federal Europe and that we are kidding ourselves, as we have done so often, by describing it as a danger.
You were very kind to call me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I have spoken on all previous European treaties, so I shall be brief. I wish to make three simple points that I hope the Minister will consider. First, although there has been some disagreement on the extent to which power has been passed over, I hope that he will accept the basic point that, once again, we are handing over power from our democratic Parliaments and getting nothing back. All previous European treaties, including the treaty of Rome, have passed power to the centre away from democracies to a new form of indirect democracy controlled by the single European state.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby spoke about sitting round the table and being positive. Every Prime Minister has done that. All Governments start out in the same way. They are always enthusiastic. They say, "We shall do things differently. We shall be positive and sit around the table and do things sensibly. We are not like the idiots who came before us, and we shall do sensible things." The previous Prime Minister was anxious to be at the heart of Europe. He meant that sincerely, but it all went wrong, as it did for the Prime Minister before him, and it will happen again. I hope that the Minister will accept the simple fact that a great deal of power has gone and nothing has come back. Is it not time for us to approach the European conferences to propose that some powers should return to democracy?
Secondly, the Minister has presented the treaty as a victory, as though it is in some way better than the other treaties. If he looks back at the speeches made on previous treaties, he will find that the same argument has been put in every case.
I recall the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill relating to the Maastricht treaty. I felt very guilty about it, because the then Prime Minister was a very nice person, but what he said was ridiculous. Other Ministers—in the Foreign Office and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—said the same thing. They said, "We are not giving anything away. There is a balance. First, we have the opt-out on the single currency."
I would love to show today's Ministers the paper issued by the Bank of England on the so-called opt-out. It states:
As the UK has opted out, the article 109(4) regulation will not apply directly in the UK. However, most of the relevant provisions will most certainly apply indirectly because they are part of the monetary law governing the Euro and will therefore be recognised by the English courts.
That was page 86 of the excellent document issued by Eddie George which tells the truth. Those who think otherwise are kidding themselves.
We then had the social chapter opt-out, which was also a joke, because, when it came to the 48-hour week, we found to our horror that all the social chapter measures could be brought in under other majority vote proceedings. We then had all the great celebrations about subsidiarity. They were also a joke. Although some people think that there is some danger under the Amsterdam treaty, basically they think that it is okay.
The Government are now claiming a new concession, which I understand was achieved by the previous Government, although that may be a wild political rumour, guaranteeing our frontiers. I wish that they would look at what is happening in the European Court as it affects some of my constituents. The Government may think that we have control of our borders, but in practical terms they are being undermined by the European Court.
The speech by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) illustrated the undue optimism to which I have referred. He referred to the terrible business of fraud in Europe. He said that we now think in terms of £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion being lost through fraud. He said that we needed a majority vote to deal with the problem. I know that he is an optimist and

a very kindly person and I am sure that he is kind to children and dogs, but what difference will majority voting make?
We have a series of policies, such as the common agricultural policy, that are an invitation to fraud. Even if all the Ministers sit round trying to take decisions by majority vote, it will not make any difference. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember all the pledges made by the previous Government—and, indeed, the present Government—about reforming the CAP. It is so pathetic. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) shares my outrage at the amount of money we spend on agriculture. Last time they said that they would reduce spending by cutting prices, and introduced area payments as compensation. They paid out the compensation, but sadly the prices did not fall, and the CAP is more expensive than ever.
My third and final point relates to the tragic lack of public interest in the whole business. A relatively large number of Conservative Members are present tonight. I have been most encouraged by the new intake of Back Benchers. In previous Governments, some of the Back Benchers on both sides of the House have been absolute rubbish. This time, we have a wonderful intake of people who are committed and concerned. However, there are very few Labour Members present tonight. They should not think that I am attacking them, as they usually have far more Members present than we do, given the limited number of Opposition Members. It is clear that there is no great interest in the subject.
When Referendum party candidates stood at the election, many people thought that they would wake everyone up and that people would either shout at them and say that it was rubbish or vote for them, but they made hardly any difference—although there was a serious marginal impact on the Conservative party.
I hope that the Government will accept that, when we pass multitudes of democratic power to non-democratic institutions, we have to get people interested, so that we either support it and wave a flag or oppose it. The plain fact is that people are not agitated, and nor is the House of Commons. In my view, that is because they are not being told what is happening to them, their families and their futures.
Although it is dangerous to ask the Government to spend money—I always try to avoid asking Governments to spend money—perhaps they should consider setting up a European truth campaign. I am not asking for a great deal of expenditure as I would not want to get involved in all the nonsense of agriculture. I would simply like the Government to place a little advertisement—perhaps it could be sponsored by politicians or people who want to promote European truth. I understand that a former deputy leader of the Conservative party was interested in promoting European truth.
We need to tell people what is actually happening—how much the European Community costs the average family in Britain. It is an awful lot of money. I have the figure here, but I would not think of trying to spread propaganda. I would like the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats—who also say that they believe in truth—to agree to tell people what it has actually cost them.
I remember the former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, quite rightly jumping up and down with rage at the possibility of an annual cost of £1,000 million, or £20 per


person. She said that it was a ridiculous amount of money. It is far more now. I should like the Government to tell us what our net contribution is costing the average family.
The Confederation of British Industry is desperately enthusiastic about the EC, perhaps because the big firms would much prefer to deal with the Commission than with a democratic Government. I also understand that a great deal of money comes to the CBI from the EC, although that would not influence anything. The business community should tell people what has happened to our trade. I have the impression that most people think that the EU is good for trade, but of course it has been a disaster. The figures that I have seen, which may be wholly inaccurate, say that we now have a total deficit of £100,000 million.
I should also like people to know about the volume of legislation. How many laws are introduced under European rules that we cannot control? What is the truth? I should also like to ask about fraud. It is important that we should tell people the truth.
The great sadness is that we have negotiated another great treaty that will pass a huge amount of power to Europe at a time when Europe is getting into a deeper and deeper mess. If hon. Members are interested, they should look at tonight's Evening Standard, where they will see that the pound has gone up again, not because people like Britain or have confidence in it, but because they are looking for somewhere to put their currency to get it out of Europe because they are terrified about what may happen with the single currency.
It is desperately sad that we are ratifying another treaty to hand over more power. It is desperately sad that the Government, like previous Governments, are optimistic about what will happen. The greatest tragedy is that the public are not greatly motivated by this huge subject that we are debating. Like most Members of Parliament, I get a huge number of letters every week. I cannot recall one—this is tragic—about the Amsterdam treaty. I had some a few weeks ago on a tiny issue—I mentioned it to the Minister—relating to the transfer of power to Europe to discuss issues such as sexual orientation. Apart from that, I have had nothing.
The public should be concerned. It would be great if the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats agreed that people should be told what is happening. People should be told the truth. Then they might wake up and might not be presented with any more desperately worrying, undemocratic treaties like this one and all those that have gone before.

Mr. Cash: What are we going to do about this treaty? The short answer is that no doubt we shall vote against it as a party, but despite the huge number of amendments that have been tabled to the Bill, the guillotine has been imposed. I tabled more than 100 amendments with some of my hon. Friends. They have all been voted down by the massive majority that the Government enjoy for the time being. Here we are, on Third Reading, with three Labour Back Benchers present. One of them has said that he will abstain; another, a member of the European Legislation Committee, is preparing to make what I imagine will be a short speech before the Minister replies; one other is sitting there in a Rodin-like posture, thinking about what he might do next.
There is no interest in the Bill or the treaty. There are about six people in the Strangers Gallery and one in the Press Gallery.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make any reference to outside the Chamber.

Mr. Cash: I accept your strictures on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the reality is that there is no interest in the treaty or in the Bill. That is a disgrace for democracy in the United Kingdom.
The Opposition have played their part. A significant number—there may not be many—of Conservative Members have made exceptional speeches, attempting, within the constraints of the guillotine that has been imposed, to delve into the issues involved in the treaty and bring them out. Even if the media—the radio, the television and even the press—are not remotely interested in the future of the United Kingdom, Conservative Members have demonstrated their concern with some exceptional speeches, showing brilliant analysis and research.
Debates on the Maastricht treaty took about 60 days. It is astonishing that this Bill has been given no more than 20 or so hours of debate. It is a disgrace and an indictment of the Government that they have allowed that. There has been no filibuster from the Conservatives on any amendment. If there were any justification for a guillotine, the Government would have to point to some attempt to extend the debate beyond reasonable parameters. That has not happened.
The treaty contains a protocol—not merely a declaration, but a protocol—on scrutiny by national Parliaments. If the Government were even remotely interested in proper analysis and scrutiny, they would have allowed a decent amount of time to discuss the fundamental questions facing the future of the United Kingdom. Scarcely any time was given to qualified majority voting, for example. Other issues include the role of the Court of Justice, the relationship between the common foreign and security policy and NATO, or unemployment, to which the Government appear to give so much attention.
The Minister made simple, uninformed comments about fraud. He assumed that there will be a diminution in fraud as a result of these arrangements, but he gave no reasons. He knows perfectly well that the other member states are scarcely interested in the subject. We have discussed subsidiarity today. There are also discussions to be had about the social chapter and the employment prospects of our constituents.
The treaty of Amsterdam is no more than a finger in the dyke. In fact, it is even less than that. There is no intention to bring about the necessary reversal in the process of European integration, which is the object of those who are driving the federal goal forward. We should identify the main architects of the process to which the Government have given in by acquiescence and appeasement. Chancellor Kohl has made it abundantly clear that his objective is political union. There has been no attempt to trim that back. No negotiating position has been adopted that would have any effect on the fundamental movement towards European integration.
As Chancellor Kohl has said, European integration and German unity are two sides of the same coin. That is the name of the game. Through qualified majority voting,


with countries that are economically and politically dependent on Germany, they will create the kind of Europe that they want. That is not the Europe that the British people want. It is not even the Europe that the German people want. That is the irony of the situation. The Bill is fundamentally un-European and undemocratic.
At a recent meeting with members of the Nordic Council, I asked many Ministers and distinguished Members of Parliament from those countries what would happen if a question on Amsterdam and political integration were put to their people. They all agreed that they would not get it through. "So what are you doing about it?" I asked. They replied, "Oh, our countries are too small. We have no option. We have to go along with it."
The process is being driven by fears and concerns and by the manipulation of the French and German Governments, who are determined to achieve their aims at all costs. The Government stand indicted of having appeased and acquiesced in that movement. The Minister ought to reply to these points. As far as I can judge, he has not replied to one question that was put to him on Second Reading or in Committee; I doubt whether he will answer any on Third Reading.
As I look at the treaty, I see that Minister for Foreign Affairs after Minister for Foreign Affairs has signed it, including Dr. Klaus Kinkel, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Federal Chancellor. The list goes on to include
Mr. Douglas Henderson, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office".
I mean no disrespect to the Minister, but where is the Foreign Secretary's name? Why did not he sign the treaty? That is what I would like to know. The treaty is a cop-out and a sell-out by the Labour Government.

Mr. Blunt: My hon. Friend is being slightly unfair to the Minister, who gave lengthy consideration in Committee to the points that we raised. In fact, he took an hour to go through all the points that were raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, which I think members of the Committee appreciated. However, since the guillotine motion was imposed, his approach has become necessarily slapdash to an appalling degree.

Mr. Cash: I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Minister is a decent and—although it is difficult for me to say—nice chap, but that is not enough.

Mr. Bercow: There is no room for sentiment on this matter.

Mr. Cash: As my hon. Friend reminds me, it is pretty difficult for me to say something like that about members of the Government.
We are dealing with fundamental questions. We are not simply going through the motions of debating transport or environment policy. This Bill is about the United Kingdom's constitution. It is more important than the Scotland Bill. The Scotland Bill might be very important—indeed, I tabled 62 amendments to it—but this Bill is about the future government of the United Kingdom, and the difficulties that it will create for future generations cannot possibly be underestimated.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke about his desire for home rule, and said that the treaty was no more than modest progress. There has been no serious opposition to the proposals from the establishment in the United Kingdom—nothing from the media to speak of, no reporting, no firm action, as I believe has been necessary. There is only one way through the morass, and it goes back to Maastricht itself. We must renegotiate the treaties. There is no other way forward.
To be against the idea of a single currency as it evolves—even for 10 years—presupposes that the previous Government could not have adopted such a position. It is therefore incumbent on the Conservative party to give the kind of consideration to renegotiation that would lead us to a new horizon, a truly European horizon, which would be in the interests of the people not only of this country but of Europe as a whole. There is no doubt that the Conservatives have won the argument. When historians come to read these debates, they will judge for themselves, but I believe that we have won the argument hands down. No reply has been given, and hardly any Labour Members have spoken.
If people do not take any notice of what we say, if argument, persuasion and reason mean nothing any more in the House of Commons, and if the media will take no interest in what we say, we shall, as I have hinted before, have to take more direct action. If the measures require it—and I believe they do—we will take action to ensure that the British people understand what is going on. The question is not one of ameliorating a minor measure; it is about fundamental changes in the UK's future. Therefore, as I said earlier, just as Parnell fought to ensure that people in Ireland obtained legislative independence, so in this country are we bound to take the necessary action to ensure that we retain—indeed, regain—the legislative independence that is required for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to follow such veterans of these debates as my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Stone (Mr. Cash), and particularly my Lincolnshire neighbour the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who made a number of interesting points, all of which I agreed with.
A feature of the debate has been that every speaker has bemoaned the lack of public interest. Why is that? I think it is because the treaty—indeed, the language of Europe—is dressed up in such a beguiling way. To an ordinary member of the public, the social chapter sounds so reasonable. Of course we want to protect people in the workplace. To a member of the ordinary public, subsidiarity sounds so reasonable—as do concerns about the protection of the environment. Despite the noble efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and others, it has been difficult to stir up public interest.
The devil lies in the detail in these treaties, and, in the few minutes vouchsafed to me, I shall deal with one issue which has not been dealt with so far—the clause on discrimination. Again, it seems so very sensible. How could anyone object to an article which says:
within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament,


may take appropriate action to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation"?
Nobody in our country could, at first sight, possibly argue with such a provision.
Once the Bill has been passed—as it will be, with a massive majority—and once the treaty is ratified by this country, the clause could have many unintended effects. Its application and its wording are unpredictable. The Government have assured us—and will go on doing so, if they bother to reply to this point—that the Council must legislate under this clause. As we well know—it has been argued effectively by many of my hon. Friends in the debate—the European Court of Justice will seek, under those words, to extend the effect of the clause. Paradoxically, that could have an unintended but serious impact on religious liberties in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom has an enviable record in European history of protecting religious and other liberties. This difficult issue is best left to member states. Whatever one's views on the European convention on human rights and its incorporation into UK law—something that the Government are now doing; it is being dealt with in the other place—it is a sounder basis for dealing with the protection of liberties than the article that I have just quoted.
Specific EU legislation in specific areas can deal with specific problems, but if we ratify such a general clause without thinking it through, it could have a serious impact on religious liberties. Of course the European Court of Human Rights has a human rights agenda. That is fair enough, although many of us have expressed concerns about that court over the years. The problem with the European Court of Justice is that it will have a concern with human rights in the context of closer European integration. What was intended to be, fundamentally, an essentially economic court will now start wandering into very sensitive areas.
We have seen how that can cause major problems: for instance, in the Grogan case, where Irish abortion law—decided after a referendum and incorporated in the Irish constitution—was overturned by the court. The Irish Government had to get a special provision in the Maastricht treaty to determine their own affairs on an issue about which the Irish people feet strongly. This county has an advanced corpus of legislation on race and discrimination, and there is general support for that legislation. There might be problems with religious or other discrimination in certain countries in the EU, such as Greece—I know not. However, those issues should be addressed directly.
What we have here is a catch-all clause. Surely it is a question of balancing the right not to be discriminated against with the right to practise a religion or hold views freely and associate with others with common ideas. One of those rights should not undermine the other. I contend that that is what the treaty will do.
During the past 50 years, we have built up a great corpus of legislation. For example, in state education, discrimination against teachers on the basis of their religious opinions has been outlawed for more than 50 years. In Northern Ireland, legislation bars discrimination on the grounds of religion. Those provisions are already in our law. What need has this country for the treaty?
All our laws contain common-sense exceptions. One has to apply common sense in this matter. I shall give a few examples of discrimination in the public sector. Are

there to be court cases about those issues? Many women object to mixed-sex wards in hospitals; should such wards close? Should the magistracy be open to adults under the age of 27? Should doctors be able to refuse fertility treatment to women in their late 40s? Should Sikh pupils be forbidden from carrying metal knives around their necks? Should the institution of marriage be restricted to heterosexual couples? Will the Church of England be able to keep control over who is married in its churches? Should Church schools be allowed to require head teachers to be practising Christians? Should they be able to insist that teachers of sex education personally adhere to that church's teaching on chastity outside of marriage?
Those are all difficult questions of conscience about which various religions and groups may feel strongly, but other people may have no concern. Are people who want to practise their faith in their own way to find themselves in a court of law because of the treaty that we are passing tonight in a Chamber that is three-quarters empty? This is not merely some arid debate about treaties or laws. It concerns everyday life and is therefore important. So the rights of one group have to be balanced with the rights of the majority.
I mentioned the example of Sikh boys, who are indeed refused the right to wear metal knives in school, but may, for instance, be permitted to wear plastic knives. Sometimes, United Kingdom law is based on Christian principles, which can require discrimination. For centuries we have required the courts to discriminate in many areas. For example, bigamous marriages are legitimate in some religions, countries and sects, but are not legal in the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, we have no written constitution in this country, but our religious freedoms have developed over centuries. Within Europe, we have a reputation that is second to none for protecting people's right to speak their mind and to practise their religion and faith in the way that they want. That record has not necessarily enjoyed by every European country. The greatest evils that have befallen the continent have resulted from discrimination based on race or religion. We know that, but in this country, despite the fact that we have not adhered to this type of treaty before and that we have no written constitution, we have a truly enviable record.
Are we entitled to take the risk of undermining the tolerance and progress that have taken centuries to build up through the common law? We are not, so we should have serious doubts about that aspect of the treaty.

Mr. Rammell: I am happy to give the treaty and the Government's negotiation of it my whole-hearted support. I fundamentally and passionately believe that it is a good treaty and a good deal for Britain. Despite the self-congratulation on the Opposition Benches, they have not put their arguments forcefully and no arguments have been won.
Conservative Members constantly draw attention to the absence of Labour Members in the Chamber. Perhaps they are absent because they have not been wholly convinced by the arguments advanced consistently here and elsewhere by Conservative Members in the past five years. They have not convinced their own party, let alone the House as a whole.
My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for Europe rightly drew attention to the bizarre call by the Leader of the Opposition, in October or November,


I think, for a referendum on the outcome of the Amsterdam treaty, and said that it had apparently been ditched. There was a shaking of heads among Conservative Members when he said that, so I would be interested to hear whether that policy—clearly a policy of opposition rather than of government—has indeed been ditched.
The shadow Foreign Secretary evinced much anger—fabricated, I believe—about the use of the guillotine. I say fabricated, because the whole House knows that the guillotine was used with impunity by the previous Tory Government over 18 years, on many Bills dealing with many different issues. His criticisms ring somewhat hollow.

Mr. Blunt: If the hon. Gentleman examines the history of the use of the guillotine in the past 18 years, he will not find a single example that is worse, in terms of curtailing debate, than the one introduced on this legislation. When the guillotine was introduced on the Single European Act, it was in the face of a deliberate filibuster, with spurious points of order and other delaying tactics. None of that existed in the discussion of the current Bill.

Mr. Rammell: One Government's filibuster is another Opposition's reasoned argument; or the other way round. The guillotine was used on the Single European Act and on a host of other legislation. That justifies the point, and undermines Conservative criticisms.
I was intrigued to hear the shadow Foreign Secretary imploring the House of Lords to disrupt the Bill. That does not accord with Conservative Members' passionate defence of democracy and the sovereignty of the House. They are willing to undermine the actions and views of the House through the actions of a wholly undemocratic second Chamber. For Conservative Members, British nationalism, not democracy, is paramount in British institutions. That is a wholly different matter, and members of the public will be aware of that.

Mr. Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the process of European federalism that is under way can claim popular support, when elections to the European Parliament—one of the Community's institutions—consistently bring a turnout of under 40 per cent? Is he seriously arguing that, in the light of the continued resistance of many member states to referendums on crucial constitutional questions, the process that he so favours has anything remotely resembling majority popular support? If so, I do not think that he inhabits this planet.

Mr. Rammell: Conservative Members have often based their argument against the European Parliament on the turnout for elections. They think that it is a clinching argument, undermining the democratic legitimacy of the European Parliament. It would be interesting to know whether they took a similar view on local government, in which the turnout for elections is of a similar order.
The turnout for elections to the European Parliament is as low as it is, first because people do not understand decision making in the European Union and the

contribution that the Parliament makes to it; and secondly because the Parliament's powers are limited and they accord it the respect that they believe that it to deserve in relation to the power that they perceive it to hold. That is why the turnout for the elections is as low as it is and, over time, we must address that issue and change the situation.
The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) lamented the fact that the public have no interest in the treaty or the Bill. There are two reasons why the House and the public do not take sufficient interest in those issue. The first is a lack of clarity about the way in which Europe reaches decisions and effects results. The second is the extreme nature of the views put forward by some Conservative Members who exaggerate and distort the treaties and everything else that comes from Europe.

Mr. Blunt: The reason is not the extreme views put forward by Conservative Members but the extreme views that are not put forward by those who are pursuing a European agenda that they know does not enjoy popular support.

Mr. Rammell: I shall give an example of what I mean by exaggeration for effect and the distortion of what is proposed. When we discussed the provision in the treaty that clearly addresses discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability and sexuality, we heard supposedly reasonable Conservative Members refer to paedophilia and bigamy, both of which are outlawed in every country of the European Union and have nothing to do with the anti-discrimination measure. Such tactics underline the way in which people's understanding of, and confidence in, Europe are blurred by the extreme views advanced by some Conservative Members.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman has now said three times that the public in this country and elsewhere in Europe do not understand European decision making. If that is so, why does he want more decisions governing their lives to be taken by that process?

Mr. Rammell: I want the decision-making process in Europe to be opened up. That is why I believe that Council of Ministers meetings should be opened up and why I welcome the fact that the treaty will provide a six-week delay on the scrutiny reserve. I also welcome the increased powers that will be given to the Conference of European Affairs Committees, recognising its role in opening up the decision-making process on behalf of national Parliaments. What is flawed is not necessarily the nature of European institutions but the way that decisions are made.

Mr. Bercow: I am pleased to learn of the hon. Gentleman's interest in public opinion. The inference could be drawn from what he has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that he would favour a referendum in all member states of the European Union on the Amsterdam treaty. The hon. Gentleman signals that he is not in favour of that level of democracy—we should know what level of democracy he does favour. Does he wish to take this opportunity to tell the House that, unless the people of Germany are given a referendum on whether to participate in the European single currency, German participation


should not be allowed to proceed and the single currency should not go ahead in the expectation of German involvement?

Mr. Rammell: We constantly hear from Conservative Members that we should not develop a federal Europe—that we should be a Europe of nation states. I agree, and if that is so, it would be unwarranted for me or any other elected politician in this country to preach to another country about its decision-making process on Europe.
The hon. Member for Stone is not in his place, but I was fascinated by the insight he gave into Tory party politics on European monetary union. I understood him to say—perhaps he will be able to clarify his remarks on another occasion—that the Tory policy of putting off the decision on EMU for 10 years could not have been carried out in government and could be adopted only in opposition. I agree. Had the Tory party won the general election on 1 May, it would have taken a different view in government. Conservative Members shake their heads, but they should consult Hansard, because that was implicit in what he said.

Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is courteous and it is not like him to insult another hon. Gentleman without having warned him. Is it in order for him so to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) when he is not in the Chamber and has not been forewarned of the attack?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has played a full part in this debate. It is entirely a matter for him whether he is in the Chamber at any given moment. I have heard nothing out of order.

Mr. Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stone will be able to pursue his arguments. I understood him to be saying what I suggested. That gives us an insight into the politics of the Tory party on the single currency.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: I shall give way just once more—I know that Opposition Members want to speak.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the unanswered questions of this debate is that of the effect of fixed exchange rates on unemployment? Neither the Minister nor Labour Members have been able to explain away the fact that, whenever Britain has taken part in fixed exchange rates, unemployment has gone up exponentially. Can he explain that to the satisfaction of Conservative Members and of some of his colleagues?

Mr. Rammell: The Amsterdam treaty does not refer specifically to economic and monetary union or fixed exchange rates, but I shall happily answer the question. If a single currency works, as I believe that it will, it will tackle currency speculation and lead to more stable exchange rates and therefore, in the long run, lower interest rates and higher growth, which would lead to greater job creation. I ask the hon. Gentleman to think

back to September 1992, when the pound was forced out of the exchange rate mechanism by international currency speculation.

Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rammell: No, I have given way several times and other hon. Members want to speak.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) talked about a European truth campaign. I am not sure what that means, but I favour ensuring that people understand the arguments about Europe. However, when it was suggested that the Government should use European Union funds to run a balanced information campaign on the pros and cons of a single currency, Conservative Members vehemently opposed the idea. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me. That undermines his argument.
Barring a few minor details, and the key issue of the social chapter, the treaty and the Bill are the ones that a Conservative Government would have brought back from Amsterdam had they been re-elected on 1 May. That wholly undermines the arguments of Tory Front-Bench spokesmen.
The Euro-sceptics, who are, as usual, heavily represented, have a more important question to answer. They have made it abundantly clear, tonight and on other occasions, that they are opposed, root and branch, to the European Union and its development. They would have opposed any treaty that any conceivable Government could have brought back. They must explain whether such views are compatible with continued membership of the European Union. The hon. Member for Stone came close to addressing that question. If, as I believe, their views are not compatible with continued membership of the European Union, we should have an honest and open debate, and they should openly advocate the case for withdrawal.
When the Euro-sceptics honestly and openly go into that campaign, I ask them to reflect on the fact that there have been two occasions since the second world war when British political parties have honestly and openly campaigned with a hostile attitude to Europe and a negative attitude to the European Community or Union. It happened once in 1983 under the Labour party and once in 1997 under the Conservative party. On both occasions, those political parties suffered the biggest defeats in their political history. The fundamental reason for that is that British nationalism and British chauvinism is skin deep. The stance adopted by the Conservative party on European issues has forced people to confront the reality of what life would be like if we withdrew from Europe. That is why I fundamentally believe that, given your current views, you are unelectable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair.

Mr. Rammell: I believe that, given their views, Conservative Members are unelectable. I welcome that, partly because it means that the Labour Government will be in office for many years to come, but I am realistic enough to realise that, at some stage in the future, it is possible that the Conservative party will come back to power. If and when that happens, I hope for the sake of


the country that wiser counsels will have prevailed within the Conservative party and caused it to abandon the dangerous route down which it is currently attempting to go.

Mr. Gill: Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that I regard this as a sad day for the House, the country and the British people. It is also an extremely sad day for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and others like him who find themselves having to abstain on tonight's vote.
The hon. Gentleman and others have fought long and hard against many aspects of European integration. By their determination to articulate their views so well, they have obviously attracted a following among the British people, who will be extremely let down by their actions tonight.
We understand the pressures on hon. Members to obey their party Whips. We understand why certain Members, instead of voting against something that they have opposed for almost their entire political careers, will fail to do so tonight. We understand the reasons only too well, but people outside will never understand it. I fear for the credibility of those hon. Members who know in their heart of hearts that they should vote against the Bill for all the reasons that they have articulated consistently year after year.
That lack of action does not just destroy the credibility of those hon. Members who are seen to be reneging on all the promises they have made over the years, but reflects on the credibility of us all. It reflects on the credibility of the House. Several times during the debate, hon. Members have questioned the lack of interest shown by the public in what is going on in Parliament tonight. Is it any wonder that the people should become so apathetic about the affairs of the House when they see not just one, but one after another, hon. Member peel away from the strongly held views that they have articulated for so long and which they have led the people to believe that they will continue to articulate and vote for?
Apart from the fact that, on this occasion, Government rebels will not vote against this particular European Bill, there is a sense of deja vu about our proceedings. In Committee, we have witnessed Ministers standing at the Dispatch Box offering inadequate explanations or answers to questions put to them. I understand why that is. I understand as well as they do that the treaty has to go through and that, if they accept but one of the arguments deployed in Committee, the treaty falls, so Ministers simply cannot accept any amendment.
Ministers are on quite sound ground with some of the amendments, and can argue and tell the movers of the amendments why they are wrong and the Government are right, but that does not apply to all the amendments tabled in Committee. Some of the answers given by the Government are totally inadequate, just as during the last Parliament Conservative Ministers at the Dispatch Box were unable to give satisfactory answers to the reasonable questions put to them. Once again in the House of Commons, the argument has been lost, but the Government will inevitably win the vote.
As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), there has been no answer to the question of how we are to reconcile ourselves to fixed

exchange rates and unemployment—that is too difficult a question to be answered, so we skate around it. When I put that question to the Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago, he said that I must understand that, when we had fixed exchange rates previously, we had a Conservative Government—as if that explained everything, as if that was a satisfactory answer and as if that made the Government's views absolutely right when in fact they were absolutely wrong.
There has been some talk in the debate about obfuscation; that is the polite way of referring to half-truths, deceptions and downright lies. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who have ventured to suggest that, had the British people been told the truth about European and had it been explained to them that we are talking not about a new form of democracy but about the integration of our country into a European Union, they would not have voted yes in the 1975 referendum; nor would they have been as tolerant with their politicians as they have been thus far.
I have no complaint against the Commission: generally speaking, what the European Commission says is what it intends to do and what it intends should happen; and what is written in the treaties is what is intended should happen. Where I depart is from those politicians who pretend that, once it is written and we have entered into a legal and binding contract as per these treaties, it can then somehow and miraculously all be altered.
We are not entering a democracy, and I invite hon. Members to consider that there can be no democracy in any nation or any group of nations when it is not possible for the electorate of that nation or group of nations to remove the people by whom they are governed. I know of no means by which we in this country can remove the European Government, and I invite the Minister to tell us how, under the great scheme of things, it is possible to remove those who, in future, will be charge of our destiny in the European Union.
The European Union is not a democracy—it is a collective, and one need only look at what is happening in our farming and fishing industries to know that. Worse is to follow, because that collectivism is to be applied to our economy and, as a result of the treaties, Europe will have a collective economy. The Government will say that they are going to achieve reform in Europe, but the question they must answer is how they are to achieve that reform. They know as well as I do that to achieve any dramatic or radical reform in the European Community requires unanimity.
It is all very well for Ministers to say that we will get reform of the agricultural policy, the fisheries policy, or any other policy, but that is just a cop-out. It sounds good, it fobs people off and it buys a little breathing space, but I invite the Minister to tell us how he will get unanimity to change, for example, the fundamentals of the common fisheries policy. How will he get unanimity to change the fundamentals of the common agricultural policy, and so on? Those are the real questions, the unanswered questions, and I invite the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box tonight and answer them.
More than anything else, I fear that we are creating a situation in which hon. Members are effectively to be neutered. In an earlier speech at the beginning of the


Committee stage, I warned of the effect of neutering Members. I have a serious warning for anyone who will listen to it about the long-term effects of neutering Members and depriving them of the ability to give satisfaction to the people who put them here: this country and all the other countries that do it will descend into anarchy.
The European Union is promoted by a political elite. One of my hon. Friends referred to the attitude of the Nordic Council, which illustrates that point. The Government have said that there is no constitutional bar to the single currency, but there is a constitutional bar to completing a total integration of the European nations in the European Union, which is what we are doing. It is a constitutional bar because it removes from the people who put us here the right to get rid of us or to get rid of the people who make the decisions that affect their lives.
I have been consistent throughout my time in the House on matters of the European Union. I believe that I am right, and I shall go on saying what I believe to be the truth. It behoves all of us, regardless of whether we are in government or in opposition, to tell the truth. Only in that way will we get the British people back on the side of their Parliament and back on the side of the people whom they sent to represent them.
There is much more that I could say on this all-important issue. To my Conservative colleagues I simply say in conclusion that there is only one game left in town, and that is to defeat the single currency and to defend the freedom of the pound sterling.

Mr. Blunt: In moving the Third Reading, the Minister said that this was a good treaty. I do not think that anyone can legitimately make that claim for the treaty, which is unintelligible to and unapproachable by ordinary members of the public. It is why the public and the media have displayed an almost complete lack of interest in the debate. A number of hon. Members, from both sides of the House, have made that point eloquently.
The treaty has failed in its central objectives for the UK. It has failed to advance, even at the most basic level, the interests of the bigger countries in promoting democracy by weighting their influence through weighting the number of their votes in the Council and the Commission. It has made no progress on the issues of enlargement. We shall wait to see the other parts of the European Union that do not have an interest in enlargement—the farming lobby and Club Med—begin to obstruct the process of enlargement.
Today, the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Hungary addressed a joint meeting of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Select Committees. They will be sadly disappointed at the conduct of enlargement negotiations, as they are put off year after year.
In Committee, we have heard many sedentary interventions from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who, sadly, is not in his place now. Such interventions go to the heart of the problem involving the construction of Europe: the future of the European project is beginning to lack democratic legitimacy.
My experience of South Yorkshire as a soldier in a South Yorkshire Regiment tells me that it is beyond belief that the hon. Member for Rotherham represents the views

of the people of Rotherham. From my experience of the people of South Yorkshire, I know that the opinions that he expresses in this place about the future of Europe are completely at odds with the instincts of the British people.
A sort of schizophrenia affects the Conservative party as much, in a sense, as it does the Government—and indeed the whole country—about our approach to Europe, and the treaty goes nowhere near beginning to address those issues for the United Kingdom. The time is coming when we must make up our minds whether we are honestly going to commit to, in effect, a united states of Europe.
We nearly heard such language from the Liberal Benches during the debate. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) spoke about his wish for a federal United Kingdom. He then spoke about a federal Europe. He should have gone on to say a federal united states of Europe—a federal state in which authority is delegated down from the centre. If he expressed what he believes in those clear terms, we would understand exactly where the Liberals were coming from.
However, even the greatest enthusiasts for European integration on the Liberal Benches haver around with language, and are not prepared to state their position clearly to the British people. The enthusiasts for Europe on both sides of the House should not treat the people of the United Kingdom with contempt, by obfuscating their true objectives; they should make the position clear.
The treaty of Amsterdam has served to undermine the competitive advantages that the Conservative Government carved out for the United Kingdom at Maastricht. The Labour Government have given way on the social chapter. Our competitive position as a country will be undermined. Therefore, all Conservative Members, regardless of their position on Europe, can unite to vote against a Third Reading of the Bill.
Within every political party, a decision must be taken about our whole approach to Europe. The treaty does not remotely address those key issues. It is about time that we started to debate in this place, honestly and objectively, what the European Union should be and what it should not be. Then we should invite our country to reach a decision.

Mr. Letwin: I shall be extraordinarily brief. I just wish say that in Committee, I—in parallel with many other Conservative Members—raised three points, each of which, if they were right, were important.
First, I alleged that the powers of the European Court of Justice were being vastly enhanced—specifically, that the basis was being laid for the eventual intervention of the European Court of Justice in British criminal law.
Secondly, I alleged that the presidency of the Commission was being given political direction of the Commission, with the intent of laying the basis for the eventual elevation of the presidency of the Commission to a role similar to that of the President of the United States—the role of president of Europe in the sense understood by Mr. Delors.
Thirdly, I alleged that protocol No. 7, by its definitions of subsidiarity, permitted the European Union to adopt any objective in any specific action and to legitimise that action—be it a directive, a regulation or a decision—as


conforming with subsidiarity merely by virtue of the fact that it conformed with the objective adopted by the European Union.
Those are three serious allegations. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when, throughout the proceedings in Committee, the Minister ostensibly responsible for Europe has not denied, referred to or refuted any of those allegations, but has merely passed them over in silence.
Those allegations may be false. I am but a new Member of this House, earnestly striving for truth, but—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It does not seem to me a disgraceful thing for a Member of Parliament to try to do. It does seem to me disgraceful that the Minister for Europe should not answer—should not think that it matters whether he answers—in a debate, however curtailed, on this treaty and this Bill. He should have answered those points and many others like them made by Conservative Members. Either he should answer our points, or he should desist from being the Minister for Europe and take up a lowlier post, leaving his job to someone who is willing to take on the argument.

Mr. Streeter: It is no surprise that the Government have chosen to crush proper scrutiny of the treaty. Throughout our deliberations, the extent to which the Government failed at Amsterdam has become abundantly clear. Through a mixture of bad judgment and incompetence, the Government made many concessions to others but received nothing in return. The treaty is good news for the European institutions and bad news for the nation state.
First and foremost, the treaty is unacceptable because it imposes on us the burden of the social chapter. It is no coincidence that, when they took office, the Government inherited the strongest economy in Europe, an economy which prospered under a Conservative Government who were prepared to defend the national interest in Europe and to guarantee jobs and prosperity for the British people.
That hard-won advantage was given away at Amsterdam. The Government talk about reducing the burden on business; then they do the very reverse. All that is doubly ironic, as the treaty adds the promotion of employment to the list of Community objectives. That led to the so-called employment summit at Luxembourg. Will the Minister tell us how many jobs were created in Europe as a result of that summit? When will Labour realise that Governments do not create jobs? It is businesses, entrepreneurs and risk takers who, free from bureaucratic burdens, create jobs: not Governments, not summits, not more meetings.
Britain's competitive advantage has been surrendered, and if for no other reason than that, the treaty should not be ratified. That is why we will oppose it tonight.
On their return from Amsterdam, Ministers sought to present the treaty as innocuous—a technical treaty that did no more than make common-sense improvements to the operation of Europe. As our debates have shown, that is simply not true. Ministers have failed to understand the long-term implications of what they have signed. Nowhere is that ministerial incompetence more

obvious than in respect of the opt-in to border controls. The Foreign Secretary thought that he had agreed to one arrangement—opt-in by QMV—only to discover that he had agreed to something completely different—opt-in by unanimity. Explanations for that blunder have changed almost weekly. We still await a clear explanation; the House still awaits an apology.
Changes made to the institutional arrangements of the Union are not merely technical. They are significant changes in the nature and powers of key European institutions. Time and again, the treaty takes powers from member states and passes them to the European institutions—all for nothing in return. Perhaps the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), a Labour Member, put it best earlier when he talked of big concessions for nothing in return. That sums up the Amsterdam treaty.
We are told that Britain is to be compensated for the loss of our second Commissioner by a re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. But there is no commitment in the treaty to re-weighting. It provides either for a re-weighting of votes or for the use of dual majority. Does the Minister accept that the latter is of no use whatever to Britain, and that it may sometimes act against our interests?
The Minister has insisted that he would not agree to our second Commissioner being removed without re-weighting. Why, then, did he agree to the inclusion of the alternative in the treaty? The Government have also given away our unfettered right to choose the British Commissioner for as long as we have one. Currently, member states must consult, but can ignore the opinion of, the Commission president on whom to nominate. Now the president is to have an unlimited veto over member states' nominees to the Commission.
The Minister also said that it was unthinkable that that power would ever be used. Why, then, was it written into the treaty? I assure the Minister that there are plenty of people in Brussels to whom the use of the veto is far from unthinkable. Does not history suggest that European institutions, especially the Parliament, find ways of using to the full every new power that they are given? What power the treaty gives them. Take the president of the Commission. Henceforth, all members are to work under his political guidance. When combined with the existing provisions of article 160, that effectively gives the president the power to hire and fire. For that reason, we object to the power.
The new power has nothing to do with good management, and everything to do with transforming the Commission into an overtly political body led by an overtly political president—one man, total power, surrounded by placemen depending on patronage: a new Labour solution, if ever there was one.
Unlike Labour, successive Conservative Governments have a record of success in European negotiations. Conservative Ministers ensured that when Britain agreed to the extensions of QMV in 1986, we guaranteed the creation of the single market—a reform which has brought more benefits to Britain than to any other country. We accepted QMV in limited areas for a specific purpose and got a real benefit in return. There were no such successes for Britain at Amsterdam. Britain's veto was just given away, with nothing in return.
As a result of Labour's failures at Amsterdam, the European Parliament has, among other new powers, a right of veto in no fewer than 23 new areas of policy. That, in a nutshell, is the result of the treaty: less power for member states, more power for the institutions; less power for the House to resist measures harmful to Britain, more power for the institutions to pursue their interventionist agenda.
The Conservative party is not anti-European. We want Europe to work for us and for every member state. We are in favour of co-operation. We are pro-European, but we are against shoddy negotiation. We are against damaging treaties. This treaty fails Britain. It will destroy British jobs. It falls short of what could and should have been achieved. It gives away so much for so little in return. We will oppose it.

Mr. Doug Henderson: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am Madam Speaker, not Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Henderson: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. I beg your pardon.
The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said that the Conservative party was not anti-European. He and his colleagues must have confused me over the seven days that we have dealt with the various stages of the Bill. They will also confuse the country about what Parliament should be doing about an issue of importance to the nation.
As was acknowledged by many of those who spoke in our debates, the issues before us are far more important than party political interests. They are crucial to the nation's interests. The Conservative party does the nation a disservice because of its divisions on Europe. Within the Conservative party there is clearly a core of opposition to Europe. Incidentally, I think that it is destroying the Conservative party, although I shed no tears about that. I am worried, however, that it threatens to destroy the integrity of our nation.
Some of the opposition is principled. I recognise the contributions made by Opposition Members with long-standing views against many issues relating to the European Union, but a different core of Conservative opposition seems to be emerging, which is focused far more on the internal politics of the Conservative party and the possibility of progress within the party. That is extremely damaging.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Henderson: I am not giving way. There are only two minutes left.
There is overwhelming support on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches for the EU and the provisions of the treaty—and I believe that there is some support on the Conservative Benches, which has been muted during these debates. Some Conservative Members have dissociated themselves publicly from the backward-looking old-fashioned anti-Europeanism of the Conservative Front Bench.
I believe that it is a good treaty. This is a good Bill that would have been unattainable under the Conservatives. It is strong on foreign policy, border controls, employment and the single market and strong against crime and fraud. They are major achievements and priorities of the British presidency. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 370, Noes 145.

Division No. 133]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ainger, Nick
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Alexander, Douglas



Allan, Richard
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clwyd, Ann


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Coaker, Vernon


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ms Ann


Atkins, Charlotte
Coleman, Iain


Baker, Norman
Colman, Tony


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Connarty, Michael


Banks, Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Barnes, Harry
Cooper, Yvette


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corston, Ms Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cotter, Brian


Beard, Nigel
Cousins, Jim


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Crausby, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Berry, Roger
Cummings, John


Best, Harold
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Blizzard, Bob



Borrow, David
Dafis, Cynog


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brand, Dr Peter
Davidson, Ian


Breed, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Browne, Desmond
Dismore, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dobbin, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Burgon, Colin
Doran, Frank


Burnett, John
Dowd, Jim


Burstow, Paul
Drew, David


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Byers, Stephen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Ennis, Jeff


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fearn, Ronnie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Caplin, Ivor
Flint, Caroline


Casale, Roger
Flynn, Paul


Cawsey, Ian
Follett, Barbara


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chaytor, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clapham, Michael
Foulkes, George






Fyfe, Maria
Kemp, Fraser


Galloway, George
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Gapes, Mike
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Gardiner, Barry
Khabra, Piara S


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Kidney, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Gerrard, Neil
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Gibson, Dr Ian
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Godman, Norman A
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Godsiff, Roger
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Golding, Mrs Llin
Laxton, Bob


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Leslie, Christopher


Grant, Bernie
Levitt, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Linton, Martin


Grocott, Bruce
Livingstone, Ken


Grogan, John
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gunnell, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Hain, Peter
Lock, David


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Love, Andrew


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McAllion, John


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Hancock, Mike
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Hanson, David
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McDonagh, Siobhain


Harris, Dr Evan
McDonnell, John


Harvey, Nick
McFall, John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Hepburn, Stephen
McNulty, Tony


Heppell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hesford, Stephen
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
McWalter, Tony


Hill, Keith
McWilliam, John


Hinchliffe, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mallaber, Judy


Hoey, Kate
Mandelson, Peter


Home Robertson, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hope, Phil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Martlew, Eric


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Maxton, John


Howells, Dr Kim
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hoyle, Lindsay
Meale, Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Merron, Gillian


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Michael, Alun


Humble, Mrs Joan
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hurst, Alan
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Hutton, John
Milburn, Alan


Iddon, Dr Brian
Miller, Andrew


Illsley, Eric
Moffatt, Laura


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jamieson, David
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jenkins, Brian
Morley, Elliot


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)



Mountford, Kali


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Mudie, George


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Mullin, Chris


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)



Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Oaten, Mark


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Olner, Bill


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
O'Neill, Martin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Keetch, Paul
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Palmer, Dr Nick





Pearson, Ian
Spellar, John


Perham, Ms Linda
Squire, Ms Rachel


Pickthall, Colin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Pollard, Kerry
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pond, Chris
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pound, Stephen
Stringer, Graham


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stunell, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Rammell, Bill
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rapson, Syd
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Tipping, Paddy



Todd, Mark


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rogers, Allan
Truswell, Paul


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ross Ernie (Dundee W)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rowlands, Ted
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Roy, Frank
Tyler, Paul



Vaz, Keith


Ruane, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Walley, Ms Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Ward, Ms Claire


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wareing, Robert N


Ryan, Ms Joan
Watts, David


Salter, Martin
Webb, Steve


Sanders, Adrian
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Wicks, Malcolm


Sawford, Phil
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sedgemore, Brian



Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Sheerman, Barry
Willis, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Shipley, Ms Debra
Winnick, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Skinner, Dennis
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Woolas, Phil


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Snape, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soley, Clive
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Southworth, Ms Helen
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Arbuthnot, James



Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clappison, James


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blunt, Crispin



Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cran, James


Brady, Graham
Curry, Rt Hon David


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Day, Stephen


Burns, Simon
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Butterfill, John
Duncan, Alan






Duncan Smith, Iain
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Madel, Sir David


Faber, David
Malins, Humfrey


Fabricant, Michael
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fallon, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Flight, Howard
May, Mrs Theresa


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam
Norman, Archie


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


Gibb, Nick
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Randall, John


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Greenway, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Grieve, Dominic
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ruffley, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hawkins, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hayes, John
Shepherd, Richard


Heald, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Soames, Nicholas


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Spicer, Sir Michael


Horam, John
Spring, Richard


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Steen, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Swayne, Desmond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Syms, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Sir Teddy



Townend, John


Key, Robert
Trend, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Tyrie, Andrew


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Walter, Robert


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wardle, Charles


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Waterson, Nigel


Lansley, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Leigh, Edward
Wilkinson, John


Letwin, Oliver
Willetts, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Wilshire, David


Lidington, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Woodward, Shaun


Loughton, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Luff, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas



MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


MacKay, Andrew
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

National Health Service (Bromsgrove)

Miss Julie Kirkbride: This petition is from the residents of Bromsgrove, who are facing intolerable cuts in their local health service. We have two hospitals that serve the constituency, although neither is situated in the constituency. Both are facing cuts in their accident and emergency departments and one is facing cuts in elective surgery.
I am particularly grateful to my local newspaper, the Bromsgrove Messenger, which collected 3,500 signatures on a petition that I can present to Parliament. It organized people to write in and protest about what is happening to our local health service.
The petition, addressed to the House of Commons, says:
The petition of residents of the Bromsgrove area declares that the services provided by the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch and the Kidderminster General Hospital are vital to the people of north Worcestershire.
They wish to remind Parliament of the promises made on 1 May 1997, when the Labour Government pledged that they would seek to improve our National Health Service.
They believe that the present proposals to close the accident and emergency departments at the Alexandra Hospital and Kidderminster General Hospital, along with all the elective surgery at the Kidderminster General Hospital, are utterly unacceptable to the people of Bromsgrove who rely on those services.
They further believe that the funding and management of the health service is one for Ministers and the Government of the day and cannot be blamed on local administrators.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to use his authority over the Worcestershire Area Health Authority to stop the closure of these departments.
It is signed by Dr. Elizabeth Shaw JP, Park Hall, Bromsgrove.

To lie upon the Table.

A3 (Hindhead Tunnel)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on a matter of enormous concern to my constituents and to people throughout the south-east. The extent to which the road problem causes concern throughout the region is shown by the number of hon. Members present this evening—my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has taken a close interest, and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson).
I had not anticipated the degree to which the road problem is a priority for people who work in the House. Since I arrived this evening, I have spoken to a Senior Office Clerk in the Vote Office, the Principal Doorkeeper, a Deputy Principal Doorkeeper and three other Doorkeepers, all of whom have informed me that their journey to work is hampered by the nightmare at Hindhead. They have asked me in the strongest possible way to reinforce the sense of priority that they hope the Minister and her Government will give to the proposals.
The case is essentially simple; the many arguments are technically compelling. I hope to demonstrate how the plans fit the criteria set out by the Minister's Department as a test for priority action. The criteria are integration, economy, safety, the environment and accessibility.
The Minister should be clear that the issue evokes enormously strong feeling in my constituency. Week in, week out, I have heard of the frustration and alarm of local people, and of the danger, delay and pollution they face on the stretch of road. The concern is not new, but it is mounting. It reflects a unity of purpose across political and geographical divisions that something must be done, which has built up over decades. It is not good enough that the road improvement scheme should simply feature in the consultation document. People want action, not words. They need a firm plan for when work will begin.
Over the years, there have been enormous improvements to the A3. It is an excellent road from London to Portsmouth and round to Southampton, but the difficulty lies on the only four-mile stretch of single carriageway at Hindhead in my constituency. Over more recent years, there have been proposals for improvements at Hindhead. In 1987, a red route was proposed, but the following year there was disappointment over it. That was followed by a proposal for a yellow route, and a modified yellow route. In June 1992, the approval of tunnel proposals was announced following consultation, and, since March 1993, that has been the preferred route. Since then, I regret to say that there has been relatively little progress.
My constituents are obviously becoming progressively more alarmed and concerned as the volume of traffic builds, and since the rest of the road is so very much better. In recent months, I have been collecting signatures for a petition, with which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire has helped. The volume of signatures has meant that we have had to extend the period during which people are asked to complete

the forms. I hope that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), I shall then be able to place the petition in the Bag behind your Chair, Madam Speaker.
The petition declares that unacceptably long delays are constantly suffered by A3 road users. Local towns and villages are adversely affected by the volume of traffic, which damages the environment and causes danger to residents. Businesses in the area and across the region suffer from costly and wasteful delays. The Hindhead commons provide exceptional landscape and national history, which should be protected for all to enjoy.
I shall quote from a sample letter from Andrew Robb, one of my constituents:
Everyone is united on one point, namely the desperate need to relieve the existing bottleneck, which worsens every day, which gives rise to major risk of accident on the existing single carriageway and roads leading to and from it and which causes considerable atmospheric pollution. Please would you give the absolute highest priority to reaching a decision on this issue as quickly as possible. Further delays would be disastrous.
I turn to the technical case. The A3 is a road of strategic regional importance, with links to Europe. It provides a key route from the coast at Portsmouth to London. It has already undergone exceptional and extensive improvement. Nigel Bourne of the CBI said in his submission to the Highways Agency, which the Minister has probably seen:
It is really quite illogical that the main road from London to Portsmouth should suffer from such ridiculous levels of congestion, particularly when the remainder of the road is generally built to a good standard.
The bottleneck is all the more intolerable because it has caused substantial blight in the surrounding area. The major route between Portsmouth, the second busiest international passenger port in the country, and London, with its international airports and road links to the north, is severely disrupted.

Mr. Syd Rapson: Is the right hon. Lady aware that Portsmouth city council's interest is in economic development and that the strangulation of the A3 is causing concern in the council? Potential developers and visitors to the city are being dissuaded because of the bottleneck which, linked with the awful train service, does not do much for the city. That is the main strength of the council's argument, although it would agree with most of the points being raised by the right hon. Lady.

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am well aware of the economic opportunities—and problems—facing Portsmouth. I hope that the millennium celebrations—in which the Millennium Commission has invested some £50 million—and the regeneration of the dock area will result in great opportunities not only for Portsmouth, but for the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) stopped me on his way in this evening to say how strongly his constituents feel about this matter. All the time that business is jammed at Hindhead, constituents face extremely difficult circumstances. I appreciate the contribution from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North and the city council's work in this regard.
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the road is a regional gateway to Europe. Regeneration and regional prosperity require a sound road infrastructure. To quote from the CBI:
Continued consultation with our members reveals their increasing concern with the state of the roads in the South East, particularly in view of it being the gateway to Europe. There is no doubt that the future of wealth creation in the region is dependent on the infrastructure and schemes are needed now to bring roads up to the barest minimum requirement.
The need is here and now. We must not hide behind strategies as excuses for delay. As the CBI said:
Discussion on an integrated transport strategy should not be allowed to be a further reason for delay. The roads schemes will be required in any event and are long overdue.
My constituents—like those of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn)—will welcome any rail improvements, which may help to ease the situation for A3 users along other stretches of the road. I do not wish to ignore that.
An integrated transport policy requires the road link between Portsmouth, Southampton, London and the airports to be of a suitable standard. At present, it is not. I welcome the fact that the Minister's consultation document recognises that an effective trunk road network is crucial to UK competitiveness. Congestion and uncertain journey times are adding to business costs. I entirely agree with businesses in my constituency—and those of other hon. Members—who are counting the costs of congestion. The Hindhead blockage is bad for business locally, regionally and in Europe. Time, fuel and money are wasted in the bottleneck.
The chairman of the Headley Down housing association speculated that
the commercial costs of the delays over the years must be enormous.
He points to the many individuals, including himself, who have suffered financial loss.
That local assessment is in line with the trend analysed by Trafficmaster, who showed that, in the third quarter of 1997 alone, 38 million man hours were lost to congestion, costing UK businesses £1.8 billion in time, resources and lost appointments. Nowhere is that truer than at Hindhead.
My third argument relates to road safety. In my constituency between January and September of last year, there were 37 collisions, with three deaths and a further 64 casualties. In the past five years, there have been 255 collisions. That is too many, and without urgent action, the numbers will grow. With the investment in Portsmouth, Southampton and throughout the region, I do not wish the stretch of my constituency to emerge as people's final resting ground on the stretch between London and Portsmouth.
Of course, it is not only on the A3 that the danger is growing. We are witnessing a disastrous effect. Traffic is ingeniously, speedily and recklessly rat-running throughout the entire area. All the delightful villages of north-east Hampshire and south-west Surrey are being invaded by reckless drivers, desperately trying to beat the jam. Residents both old and young are put at risk, the quality of life is being damaged and the danger is mounting. On those grounds, they urgently ask the hon. Lady to look carefully into the situation.
In "What role for Trunk Roads in England?", the Government set out the objectives for the A3 improvement scheme, which are: to reduce congestion and delay to road users; to enhance road safety; and to provide additional capacity. I welcome those objectives, but the report does not do justice to the overwhelming environmental case for action on the A3. That road bisects a landscape of national and international significance.
In Kyoto recently, the Secretary of State said that the Government were committed to environmental protection. This debate provides the Minister with the ideal opportunity to endorse a project that will have substantial environmental gains. The Hindhead commons, through which the A3 runs, are National Trust land. It has been designated a site of special scientific interest and, on a European dimension, it is a candidate special protection area.
In its letter to the Department, the National Trust, echoing local views, writes:
We urge that the A3 Hindhead scheme be retained in the programme, and considered for early implementation. It is near Draft Orders stage of design; and is one of the few schemes that satisfies the majority of transport and environmental objectives".
With encouragement like that from the National Trust, how can the hon. Lady possibly resist? The Hindhead commons are a national asset. The combination of high landscape, ecological and heritage value make a significant contribution to the country's environmental capital. The enhancement and protection of such assets carry a high priority in Government planning policy. The replacement of the existing surface road with a tunnel would achieve such objectives.
I can also inform the hon. Lady of the comments from the Council for the Protection of Rural England:
The Devil's Punch Bowl is a landscape feature that is completely dominated by the present level of traffic congestion. Relieved of traffic it could once more be an incomparable place where the public could experience the quiet enjoyment of the rich Surrey countryside.
Finally, the Countryside Commission says:
We have, since the proposal for a road scheme improvement on the A3 at Hindhead was submitted for consultation, consistently support the option for a tunnel development as the only acceptable proposal. We believe that this is the only scheme that has fully considered the impact of development upon the landscape, local character and wildlife of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty".
However, the CPRE letter sums up what is happening, stating:
The whole area of minor rural roads around the junction is plagued at peak times by traffic seeking out rat runs.
Dramatic topography, tranquillity, panoramic views and the diverse habitats all combine to give this area a nationally significant scenic quality an international wildlife value and make it a regionally important resource for recreation. As the National Trust rightly says, the only detracting feature is
the intrusion resulting from traffic on the A3, as it skirts the rim of the Punch Bowl, which is both visible and audible over a wide area.
The tunnel solution would see the National Trust lands reunited, with the present road fully restored to heath land. Obviously, there are local reservations about the adverse impact of the scheme on areas such as Boundless copse and Tyndall's wood, but the significant benefits that


would arise from the provision of a tunnel, combined with the closure of the existing road, would be of national and international importance.
I have spoken about the effect of rat runs on the environment. They also damage local accessibility—another of the criteria against which the hon. Lady's Department is judging the trunk road proposal.
It should have become clear by now that one of the most severe problems facing my constituents is the increasing volume of traffic seeking to avoid the A3 and using roads that are unsuitable. In the Government document, the Minister says:
Accessibility is about making it easier to reach the places we need to get to.
Growing congestion on the A3 at Hindhead clearly prevents that, and diminishes the concept of equity, the final criterion in the document, which says that we should be fair to every group of people, with all their differing needs.
The current situation is not fair to commercial traffic, long-distance commuters, holiday makers or local residents; or, indeed, to those of us coming into work in the House. The National Trust said:
A tunnel would pose no constraints on accessibility.
It is the obvious solution, and the only way in which to tackle the existing bottleneck.
I appreciate the Minister's presence at this late hour. I hope that I have made clear to her the strength of feeling about the proposal. It is vital that it achieves priority and that, in the response to the trunk road review, the people of Hindhead and the region are told what the timetable is and what steps they can take next. They are affronted and outraged, and becoming increasingly angry.
A young man of 15 from Rodborough school in Witley, Sebastian Coulthard, wrote to me. I hope that he will be able to look forward to the road being completed before much longer. He said:
My family and I suffer every day the consequences of the excesses of traffic in Haslemere and every time we pass by the Hindhead crossroads I feel very sad to see how blighted the area has become … I also feel sad at the extraordinary amount of accidents that have happened in the stretch and how it has become a cause of concern and irritation for those who live near it. I hope this letter helps you convince the Government of the misery that people have been experiencing in this area and decide to start building the tunnel NOW.
I agree with Sebastian.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) for the opportunity that she has afforded the House to discuss this topic, which is clearly of importance to hon. Members of all parties, and not exclusively to her constituency. She has highlighted that importance by pointing out the presence of the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn). I also thank her for her generosity in affording an opportunity to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) to intervene in the debate.

Mrs. Bottomley: I am also delighted to see the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) here. He too feels extremely strongly about this, not only because many residents of Putney spend their holidays in the Isle of Wight and so, I hope, plague him on the matter.

Ms Jackson: I hardly think that anyone would regard the representations of constituents as a plague, but I am none the less grateful to the right hon. Lady for pointing out my hon. Friend's presence.
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on setting out her arguments so clearly and strongly, within the context of the importance of safety, the environment, economic sustainability and community issues.
The A3 is a road of regional significance, linking the port and city of Portsmouth to London and, via the M25, to the rest of the country. It is paralleled in the transport corridor by the London-Portsmouth railway, which also provides a significant link between the communities of Portsmouth, east Hampshire, west Surrey and London.
As well as providing access to Portsmouth, the A3 acts as a commuter route, carrying a large traffic flow of about 80,000 vehicles a day to the north of Guildford. I understand that some of the commuter problems were made clear to the right hon. Lady by some of the Doorkeepers who work in the Palace.
The flows decrease to the south of Guildford, with traffic flows around Hindhead in the order of 27,000 vehicles a day. As it is a route to the ports, there is not much seasonal variation in its use. The proportion of heavy goods vehicles on the A3 is near the national average of 10 per cent. Congestion occurs around Guildford, and it is severe at peak periods on the single carriageway through Hindhead.
The built and natural environment of Hindhead provides challenging constraints in finding a solution to its problems. I have in mind the Devil's Punch Bowl, to which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey referred and which is a dramatic landscape feature to the north of Hindhead and part of the Hindhead Commons heathland site of special scientific interest. The alignment and the number of direct accesses on to the trunk road at Hindhead contribute to the poor safety record on that stretch of road.
I understand the desire of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey for early decisions on the A3 Hindhead improvement scheme, which has already been through a number of reviews. As she knows, the Government have embarked on a fundamental review of transport policy. Our objectives, as a Government, are a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. As the right hon. Lady pointed out, transport is a vital part of all those aims.
Good communications are central to the economy and our quality of life. However, the backdrop to the fundamental review is a candid recognition that we need a shift in direction. Revised national road traffic forecasts published last autumn show traffic increasing by nearly 40 per cent. over the next 20 years. If current policies continue, congestion will get worse, the impact on the environment will be even more severe, and those who have no access to private transport will find it even more difficult to get around.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister recently returned from the successful Kyoto summit—the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey also mentioned it—with a legally binding target for the European Union to reduce greenhouse gases by 8 per cent. The United Kingdom's contribution towards this target, to be determined in spring and summer of 1998, is likely to be above the average. To meet the target, measures will need to be taken in all sectors of the economy.
The Government have signalled their intention to tackle the growth of emissions from the transport sector through policies such as the integrated transport strategy. A number of measures to reduce CO2 emissions from transport, in addition to the fuel duty strategy, are, therefore, being considered as part of the integrated transport policy review.
We must develop an integrated transport system that makes the best use of the contribution each mode can make; ensures that all options are considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair; and takes into account, from the outset, considerations of accessibility, integration, safety, the environment and the economy. Above all, an integrated transport system must be sustainable. One of the encouraging aspects of such an ambitious task is the degree of consensus that we do need to change.
We cannot achieve that change in isolation and we want actively to engage those involved in transport. It is a feature of the policy development work now under way that we are involving a wide range of external advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. That is the context for the roads review, which is examining the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads: first, to make better use of existing infrastructure; secondly, to manage demand; and thirdly, to provide new infrastructure. To make best use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms and we must make the best use of that investment. Technologies old and new can help to make better use of our roads network. A number of measures can also bring safety benefits and we will need to ensure that those are given proper priority. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
We must also consider seriously other harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic. It encompasses reducing the need to travel by, for example, land use planning, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged and, inevitably, controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms. Many local authorities are seeking through integrated transport packages to combine demand management and other measures so that mobility is maintained while its adverse consequences are reduced. In the local transport settlement recently announced by my right hon. Friend

the Minister for Transport, I was pleased that the Government were able to continue to support Surrey county council's transport package for Guildford, which will help to alleviate congestion and provide increased support for its safe routes to school transport package.
The Highways Agency's programme of small safety schemes is continuing, but major new construction is under review. Providing new infrastructure is a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options. Volume 2 of our roads review consultation document, "What Role for Trunk Roads", sets out region by region the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme inherited from our predecessors. The existence of a scheme in the inherited programme is prima face evidence that there is a transport problem. We sought from our regional consultations a view on whether those are the most important problems, or whether others deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from this part of the review: a firm, short-term investment programme; and a programme of studies to consider the remaining problems, out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
The Government office for the south-east held three day-long seminars last autumn as part of our consultation process on integrated transport. At an integrated transport policy seminar in Woking last September, which was attended by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads, delegates agreed that more work was needed to encourage the transfer of freight movements from road to rail, particularly on the strategic transport corridors serving the ports.
Seminars in Ashford and Reading last October looked at transport corridors in the Government office for the south-east region, including the A3 transport corridor between the M25 and the Hampshire ports. Many of the right hon. Lady's points about the importance of the A3 Hindhead improvement scheme for safety, the environment and support of the economy were also made at the seminar. Strong representations were made and there was a clear consensus on the importance, regionally, of high-quality, reliable routes, both road and rail, to the south-east ports, including Portsmouth.
The Hindhead problem was highlighted as requiring particularly urgent attention. Many delegates were in favour of the 1996 road programme scheme going ahead as quickly as possible to bring the route up to a consistent standard and to alleviate the environmental and traffic problems. That view was also strongly reflected in the written contributions that we received about the A3 at Hindhead. Others favoured a study that would first establish what role there was for rail to assist in managing demand, both at Hindhead and more generally on the A3, and whether there were alternative, smaller scale improvements that could address the problems. We will take all those views into account in deciding how best to proceed.
Developing a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society, is a huge challenge. Through the work now under way on trunk roads, we want to achieve a robust short-term programme and a system for planning future

investment in the road network, whether by measures to make better use of the existing network, or by providing new infrastructure, that is fair and seen to be fair—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.